A Snapcaster Mage ban is ridiculous. As far as SFM goes, it's a much lower power level card than Thought Knot Seer, which is also a 4/4 on turn 3, and TKS comes with it's own protection.
In a vacuum its less powerful yes. Without batterskull its decently fair. WITH batterskull that's what made it broken. Make u/w control with stoneforge and not play batterskull with it, only use the swords of and such. It's not nearly oppressive.
With JTMS now that he's back why not test a meta without snapcaster and see if its jace that's more powerfull or snapcaster/jace together. I mean they nuked Naya with nactal for a few years to see how the meta shook out. Then they brought back nactal. Do the same with snappy. Blue doesn't always have to have all the tools twice with snap if it has good filtering with Jace.
I am going log out, as there is no sane argument to ban Snaps to 'see what happens with just Jace' as if Jace is even good by himself!
Why repeat a mistake (nactal) at all when blue is only now, since Search/Teferi, in a remotely descent place?
I mean what jank are you playing in your meta that says 'you know what needs a Nerf? Blue decks.'
its not anything at all, because its never been in the format. also you are assuming UW would even be the best shell for stoneforge, which is highly debatable.
I'll concede that its never been in modern but I played through the cawblade era of magic. Just for a example the best red deck that could be made in standard with the ubiquitous lightning bolt, goblin guide, ect couldn't lay a finger on the beast that was cawblade. After that ban I had a month or so of playing what felt like a red modern deck of the time in standard. Red was insanely good but got out powered by batterskull, JTMS, stoneforge, and colonnade with snapcaster backup. Modern is a different beast yes but giving all those tools to remake a very unfun meta seems less than desirable.
As for what other decks SFM could be applied to, well affinity would get ALOT more playable since cranial plating is now assured not hoped. Dunno if that would warp the meta at all. After that I don't know what other archetypes might spring up with a stoneforge in modern. I just don't want to see modern variances get lower. Big meta is much more fun than bumping into the same 4 decks every tourney
Snapcaster Mage is mostly a control card and it really is meant for some very specific decks. There was a point it was played with prowess decks and delver, but now it's mostly the domain of Jeskai Control listings. Also, that's probably why you are getting under idSurge's skin a bit here.
They aren't going to ban Snapcaster Mage because he is too specific to one or two archetypes. Plus it's far more of an interactive and fun deck to run than a lot of the other options out there. I know two other people who play it online and they tend to like it. Honestly, didn't think a Tin Fin legacy player would be into jeskai control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Realistically what are the majority of w/x decks going to play if they put stoneforge back in? The only logical choice that gives the most power to weight ratio is batterskull which needs no other creature and can save itself decently. Like you said hollow one needs 16 enablers, stoneforge really only needs itself and one other card. Other than a weird voltron swords of deck what other equipment are you truely going to play with stoneforge.
This is actually a decent point but I think it doesn't really support your argument. What equipment will be played with Stoneforge? Batterskull is top of that list. Would it be a 4-of? No. I could see maybe 2. And how many existing, top-tier decks are going to go the route of a Swords package above just Batterskull. Maybe Junk, but that is fairly tier 2 right now so a shot in the arm may be what is needed. I don't see either of these options as truly problematic.
There are so many things in this format that answer a Batterskull or a SFM for that matter. And, I am not convinced UW is the right shell for the card (maybe it is). But, what cards would be cut from the deck to make room for 6+ cards to have an equipment package? I don't think there is an easy answer to this.
Having Jace in the format does not make this analogous to Caw-Blade Standard. As you stated, the cards to protect it are much better but so are the cards against it. And, frankly, I would rather see a SFM + Batterskull across the table than a turn 2 (or 3) TKS or a turn 3 Reality Smasher.
The point is that anything SFM brings to the table doesn't come close to being over the line compared to what we already have and Modern is already a fine format for what we have. SFM + Batterskull will not break anything. It will not make the format worse (though it may give some decks a worse matchup) and it potentially introduces a new deck type for people who want that sort of playstyle.
There are going to be things that are weak against the potential meta if SFM were to be unbanned. That is the given in any situation and applies to cards being introduced to Modern via Standard. The meta cannot remain stagnant for the fear of upsetting the status quo.
Personally Id like to see a snapcaster ban. It be interesting to see how modern blue would shake out if they couldn't stall out and double use a bunch of utility spells.
Yikes. I can't really parse the last 2.5 years of Modern in any way that could possibly justify a Snapcaster ban. This was a deck type that was outright bad for 2016-2017, struggling but solidly Tier 2 for 2017-2018, and only verifiably Tier 1 for 3-4 months of this year. And even there, it has far less metagame presence than other top-tier regulars and all-stars like Gx Tron, Burn, Humans, Affinity, etc. I just can't see where this suggestion comes from.
Mostly from seeing too many shenanigans with snapcaster from over the years, not just in modern. It is a broken card in some respects in that it allows you to use things twice, yes you usually cant cheat the play from yard cmc cost much but its still aggressively played in anything that has a lot of instants and sorceries with cheap value and access to blue.
Any card that sees decent play in Modern is a "broken card in some respects." That's not a reason to ban something.
Add in stoneforge and you pretty much have what caw blade was back in the day with even more and better removal options.
"Back in the day" Caw-Blade existed in a format with only 2 years of sets that lacked decent answers to it. There was no Fatal Push, no Kolaghan's Command; not even Pithing Needle or Oblivion Ring were legal. Modern has considerably more answers to Caw-Blade's antics and the much higher power level of the format allows everything else to compete with it much more easily. Frequently, a deck rises to the top in Standard not because it's so powerful in and of itself, but because in Standard's small card pool, there just isn't enough to put together a strong deck to fight it with.
Siege Rhino was able to propel Abzan decks to the forefront of Standard for its entire tenure in the format. How much play does it see in Modern nowadays, even in Abzan Midrange decks which would be the natural home for it? Not much. Or more recently, Energy was so good they banned multiple cards from it, and that's a deck that sees basically no play in Modern. Now I understand those decks didn't dominate Standard quite as much as Caw-Blade did, but they were still easily the best decks in their STandard formats and have transitioned very poorly to Modern despite none of the cards in them being banned in Modern.
Also recently for me U/W/? within two matches cryptic commanded me 7 times with snapcaster backup, if you don't find THAT obnoxious well.... Admittedly also that was in a match that top decked terminus twice on turn three naturally ugh. Still shows how with the correct build of U/W it can get oppressive.
Finding something "obnoxious" does not mean that it is overpowered or banworthy.
At this point, I am really only behind a Stoneforge Mystic unban for personal financial gains. Even if she is unbanned tomorrow, I can't say I would even play her when I can currently just Blood Moon and Emrakul my opponents. SFM is essentially a fair card that facilitates mostly fair gameplay. And if the most broken thing it can do is put a 4/4 into play, on turn 3, while needing to survive after tapping out turn 2.... I'd rather just hold up Remands and turn 5 Breach people.
its not anything at all, because its never been in the format. also you are assuming UW would even be the best shell for stoneforge, which is highly debatable.
As for what other decks SFM could be applied to, well affinity would get ALOT more playable since cranial plating is now assured not hoped. Dunno if that would warp the meta at all. After that I don't know what other archetypes might spring up with a stoneforge in modern. I just don't want to see modern variances get lower. Big meta is much more fun than bumping into the same 4 decks every tourney
Yes, getting copies 9-12 of Cranial Plating after copies 5-8 using Steelshaper's Gift that every Affinity deck already plays will make Affinity nigh unbeatable /s
I get that there is concern over letting SFM loose, but this doesn't make much sense. Why would Affinity run SFM when SFM is a) not an artifact, b) does nothing on her own for their end game, and c) is a turn slower in getting Cranial Plating online than Gift? I just cannot envision SFM being played in Affinity when she is effectively just a slightly better Open the Armory in that particular deck and neither of those tutors see any play. Stapling a 1/2 body onto those cards will not make them playable in Affinity.
That was mostly joking for KTK since he was talking about turn three kills, but in truth the more turns you go down in modern the more a snap command can shut you down when you need to attack then they wack you upside the head with nothing to block with if decks have their finishers in play. Like anything if they can shut down the early plays you might not have the gas to win after a certain point or it just wont matter cause they get answers.
its not anything at all, because its never been in the format. also you are assuming UW would even be the best shell for stoneforge, which is highly debatable.
I'll concede that its never been in modern but I played through the cawblade era of magic. Just for a example the best red deck that could be made in standard with the ubiquitous lightning bolt, goblin guide, ect couldn't lay a finger on the beast that was cawblade. After that ban I had a month or so of playing what felt like a red modern deck of the time in standard. Red was insanely good but got out powered by batterskull, JTMS, stoneforge, and colonnade with snapcaster backup. Modern is a different beast yes but giving all those tools to remake a very unfun meta seems less than desirable.
Sure, that Red deck was running Goblin Guide and Lightning Bolt. It was also running such classic Modern all-stars as... Chandra's Phoenix, Hero of Oxid Ridge, and Shrine of Burning Rage. We're talking about something that's operaitng at a much, much lower power level than what is possible in Modern.
As for what other decks SFM could be applied to, well affinity would get ALOT more playable since cranial plating is now assured not hoped. Dunno if that would warp the meta at all.
Okay, this statement of yours is a strong indication you have no idea what you're talking about.
Stoneforge Mystic would make Affinity more playable because of Cranial Plating being guaranteed? You know that if it wanted to, Affinity could do that for one less mana with Steelshaper's Gift? If Affinity isn't running that card, why would they want to pay an extra mana for the same effect? They don't even get real benefit out of Stoneforge Mystic's put it into the battlefield effect because it costs the same amount of mana as actually casting the thing.
That was mostly joking for KTK since he was talking about turn three kills, but in truth the more turns you go down in modern the more a snap command can shut you down when you need to attack then they wack you upside the head with nothing to block with if decks have their finishers in play. Like anything if they can shut down the early plays you might not have the gas to win after a certain point or it just wont matter cause they get answers.
Yes, if you get to 6+ mana, Snap/Command is a relevant thing, but even that isnt a game winner. We have all watched (and experienced if you play it) over the years Blue Control decks being in a position of power, and one turn of a stumble is enough to give you the loss in this format.
Heck, we saw that just the other weekend when it was GW Devoted Druid vs Hollow One. He was dead to board, untapped, and combo for the win. Thats Modern.
Control decks actually winning when a game goes long, is how things should have always been. You either play disruptive, play under, or go over (Tron) or you play it yourself, or Combo...I mean is not like there are not answers.
Snaps being banned, I say again, would be the end of the format. I know I'd sell out of all my blue (and now worthless) cards.
The Affinity splashing for Hardened Scales and Stirrings is a pretty nice Canary too.
EDIT: So what beats that meta? Its not midrange, is it Infect? I dont even know what I would do to attack that.
EDIT x 2: Its 2 KCI, in the top 16, and that weird Affinity build. If it can power up Affinity and thats not a flash in the pan, THEN I think it gets nuked.
The Affinity splashing for Hardened Scales and Stirrings is a pretty nice Canary too.
EDIT: So what beats that meta? Its not midrange, is it Infect? I dont even know what I would do to attack that.
EDIT x 2: Its 2 KCI, in the top 16, and that weird Affinity build. If it can power up Affinity and thats not a flash in the pan, THEN I think it gets nuked.
It's nice to see the Scales version doing well, but I don't think it's the best version. I recently threw Stirrings into my Affinity list though, and I'm loving it. Not sure what to make yet of the Evolutionary Leap but I like it as a 5th Ravager of sorts, and I love the idea of 7 Forest. I think there's a better green card than Scales though.
Ancient Stirrings needs the hammer in my book. G Tron will survive with a Weaker Oath Nissa it won't get their non creature artifacts but its still easily hitting 50-60% of the decks cards instead of the about 80% they get now, the remaining 20% are other spells in a generic list. Its clear colorless decks are abusing Stirrings for unmatched consistency that no other cantrip comes close to matching. Beyond that Wizards should know only "colorless" aint much of handicap based on how broken Artifact focused Sets have been throughout history.
So you always win turn three? Cool what deck are you playing and what's your list?
This is literally not what I said. I said that in many matchups, if you tap out on T2 for an SFM and are on the play, you will either lose outright on T3, or allow the opponent to assemble a boardstate that is overwhelmingly likely to result in a loss (i.e. an unsalvageable board state). See Affinity, Infect, Grishoalbrand, KCI, Tron, Storm, H1 (if they Bolt/Brutality the SFM), Burn, and various other decks. These kind of pithy, quippy responses really don't advance our conversation.
Overall, I just don't know where this whole line of argument is coming. I don't think you are making a very strong case from the start. You started with a "ban Snapcaster" platform, added an "SFM is too strong" position, built in an "SFM in Affinity" argument, and interspersed these with some strange characterizations of Modern decks. Plus mis-characterizations of other users' arguments. I can think of some legitimate arguments against SFM which could be backed by real-world events and data. Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing them here. Rather, your posts suggest to me that you just personally dislike blue-based decks and are afraid of how SFM will improve those decks to where you would dislike them more.
Re: Stirrings
The results of this weekend do not change my opinion that either Stirrings needs to go or Preordain needs to come back. Stoddard's rationale for keeping Preordain banned simply makes no sense to me in a world where Stirrings is this kind of universal enabler for a range of decks. It's possible there's a new reason Preordain is banned that we just don't know about, in which case I guess I defer to Wizards. But based on available information, such as why Preordain was banned in the first place (blue-based combo decks) and why it remains banned (blue-based combo plus consistency tools resulting in games playing the same), it just shouldn't be on the list anymore.
Ancient Stirrings needs the hammer in my book. G Tron will survive with a Weaker Oath Nissa it won't get their non creature artifacts but its still easily hitting 50-60% of the decks cards instead of the about 80% they get now, the remaining 20% are other spells in a generic list. Its clear colorless decks are abusing Stirrings for unmatched consistency that no other cantrip comes close to matching. Beyond that Wizards should know only "colorless" aint much of handicap based on how broken Artifact focused Sets have been throughout history.
Colorless is not much of a handicap. Non land colorless is a huge handicap.
Its not like Affinity needs help. It remains one of the best decks, and has been such for a SUPER long time. Lantern added Whir, didnt it? Maybe KCI does the same.
Hence why G Tron will be fine. Oath of Nissa will dig 3 and get them a Land, Creature or Walker. KCI, Lantern and Affinity...meh F Them. They can use the weaker options Blue gets.
So you always win turn three? Cool what deck are you playing and what's your list?
This is literally not what I said. I said that in many matchups, if you tap out on T2 for an SFM and are on the play, you will either lose outright on T3, or allow the opponent to assemble a boardstate that is overwhelmingly likely to result in a loss (i.e. an unsalvageable board state). See Affinity, Infect, Grishoalbrand, KCI, Tron, Storm, H1 (if they Bolt/Brutality the SFM), Burn, and various other decks. These kind of pithy, quippy responses really don't advance our conversation.
Overall, I just don't know where this whole line of argument is coming. I don't think you are making a very strong case from the start. You started with a "ban Snapcaster" platform, added an "SFM is too strong" position, built in an "SFM in Affinity" argument, and interspersed these with some strange characterizations of Modern decks. Plus mis-characterizations of other users' arguments. I can think of some legitimate arguments against SFM which could be backed by real-world events and data. Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing them here. Rather, your posts suggest to me that you just personally dislike blue-based decks and are afraid of how SFM will improve those decks to where you would dislike them more.
Re: Stirrings
The results of this weekend do not change my opinion that either Stirrings needs to go or Preordain needs to come back. Stoddard's rationale for keeping Preordain banned simply makes no sense to me in a world where Stirrings is this kind of universal enabler for a range of decks. It's possible there's a new reason Preordain is banned that we just don't know about, in which case I guess I defer to Wizards. But based on available information, such as why Preordain was banned in the first place (blue-based combo decks) and why it remains banned (blue-based combo plus consistency tools resulting in games playing the same), it just shouldn't be on the list anymore.
I don't doubt Blue will be well served during the course of three Ravnica Blocks featuring characters counting Ux walkers alone...Jace, Bolas, Teferi, Ral, Tezz and Tamiyo. But so well served it will justify keeping Preordain banned, I have serious doubts about that.
Not going to directly debate the merits of a Twin unban, as it tends to torpedo the thread for numerous pages. Rather, I'll simply point to the current diversity of blue decks across MTGO, SCG, the GP circuit, and other tournament settings. Now, let's completely ignore how the Twin ban did or did not enable those decks to succeed. We're just acknowledging that there are more non-Twin blue decks on the GP/PT scene today than in the Twin era (9% then vs. 17.5% now). Given that, let's say we are asking the hyper-conservative Wizards R&D department. Remember that this is the R&D that took years to unban a card (JTMS) that did almost nothing. Same with BB, AV, Nacatl, and others. Given their track record, which is indicative of their hyper-conservative thinking, why on earth are the going to unban a potentially polarizing card like Twin in this diverse blue metagame? Again, for all the Twin supporters, this is not an argument directed at you. I am simply looking at R&D and not envisioning a near future where R&D evaluates Twin as a card that should be unbanned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Over-Extended/Modern Since 2010
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am going log out, as there is no sane argument to ban Snaps to 'see what happens with just Jace' as if Jace is even good by himself!
Why repeat a mistake (nactal) at all when blue is only now, since Search/Teferi, in a remotely descent place?
I mean what jank are you playing in your meta that says 'you know what needs a Nerf? Blue decks.'
Spirits
I'll concede that its never been in modern but I played through the cawblade era of magic. Just for a example the best red deck that could be made in standard with the ubiquitous lightning bolt, goblin guide, ect couldn't lay a finger on the beast that was cawblade. After that ban I had a month or so of playing what felt like a red modern deck of the time in standard. Red was insanely good but got out powered by batterskull, JTMS, stoneforge, and colonnade with snapcaster backup. Modern is a different beast yes but giving all those tools to remake a very unfun meta seems less than desirable.
As for what other decks SFM could be applied to, well affinity would get ALOT more playable since cranial plating is now assured not hoped. Dunno if that would warp the meta at all. After that I don't know what other archetypes might spring up with a stoneforge in modern. I just don't want to see modern variances get lower. Big meta is much more fun than bumping into the same 4 decks every tourney
They aren't going to ban Snapcaster Mage because he is too specific to one or two archetypes. Plus it's far more of an interactive and fun deck to run than a lot of the other options out there. I know two other people who play it online and they tend to like it. Honestly, didn't think a Tin Fin legacy player would be into jeskai control.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
There are so many things in this format that answer a Batterskull or a SFM for that matter. And, I am not convinced UW is the right shell for the card (maybe it is). But, what cards would be cut from the deck to make room for 6+ cards to have an equipment package? I don't think there is an easy answer to this.
Having Jace in the format does not make this analogous to Caw-Blade Standard. As you stated, the cards to protect it are much better but so are the cards against it. And, frankly, I would rather see a SFM + Batterskull across the table than a turn 2 (or 3) TKS or a turn 3 Reality Smasher.
The point is that anything SFM brings to the table doesn't come close to being over the line compared to what we already have and Modern is already a fine format for what we have. SFM + Batterskull will not break anything. It will not make the format worse (though it may give some decks a worse matchup) and it potentially introduces a new deck type for people who want that sort of playstyle.
There are going to be things that are weak against the potential meta if SFM were to be unbanned. That is the given in any situation and applies to cards being introduced to Modern via Standard. The meta cannot remain stagnant for the fear of upsetting the status quo.
Are you comically implying that unless you win before Turn 4, Snaps/Cryptic will lock you out?
Spirits
"Back in the day" Caw-Blade existed in a format with only 2 years of sets that lacked decent answers to it. There was no Fatal Push, no Kolaghan's Command; not even Pithing Needle or Oblivion Ring were legal. Modern has considerably more answers to Caw-Blade's antics and the much higher power level of the format allows everything else to compete with it much more easily. Frequently, a deck rises to the top in Standard not because it's so powerful in and of itself, but because in Standard's small card pool, there just isn't enough to put together a strong deck to fight it with.
Siege Rhino was able to propel Abzan decks to the forefront of Standard for its entire tenure in the format. How much play does it see in Modern nowadays, even in Abzan Midrange decks which would be the natural home for it? Not much. Or more recently, Energy was so good they banned multiple cards from it, and that's a deck that sees basically no play in Modern. Now I understand those decks didn't dominate Standard quite as much as Caw-Blade did, but they were still easily the best decks in their STandard formats and have transitioned very poorly to Modern despite none of the cards in them being banned in Modern.
Finding something "obnoxious" does not mean that it is overpowered or banworthy.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I get that there is concern over letting SFM loose, but this doesn't make much sense. Why would Affinity run SFM when SFM is a) not an artifact, b) does nothing on her own for their end game, and c) is a turn slower in getting Cranial Plating online than Gift? I just cannot envision SFM being played in Affinity when she is effectively just a slightly better Open the Armory in that particular deck and neither of those tutors see any play. Stapling a 1/2 body onto those cards will not make them playable in Affinity.
Okay, this statement of yours is a strong indication you have no idea what you're talking about.
Stoneforge Mystic would make Affinity more playable because of Cranial Plating being guaranteed? You know that if it wanted to, Affinity could do that for one less mana with Steelshaper's Gift? If Affinity isn't running that card, why would they want to pay an extra mana for the same effect? They don't even get real benefit out of Stoneforge Mystic's put it into the battlefield effect because it costs the same amount of mana as actually casting the thing.
Also, "a lot" is two words, not one.
Yes, if you get to 6+ mana, Snap/Command is a relevant thing, but even that isnt a game winner. We have all watched (and experienced if you play it) over the years Blue Control decks being in a position of power, and one turn of a stumble is enough to give you the loss in this format.
Heck, we saw that just the other weekend when it was GW Devoted Druid vs Hollow One. He was dead to board, untapped, and combo for the win. Thats Modern.
Control decks actually winning when a game goes long, is how things should have always been. You either play disruptive, play under, or go over (Tron) or you play it yourself, or Combo...I mean is not like there are not answers.
Snaps being banned, I say again, would be the end of the format. I know I'd sell out of all my blue (and now worthless) cards.
EDIT: GP Meta.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpbar18/top-stories-2018-07-01
Archetype Metagame Share
Tron 0.12
Humans 0.11
White-Blue Control 8.5%
Jeskai Control 6.5%
Counters Company 0.06
Krark-Clan Ironworks 0.06
Mardu Pyromancer 5.5%
Burn 4.5%
Dredge 4.5%
Hollow One 4.5%
Grixis Shadow 4.5%
Traverse Shadow 3.5%
Bogles 2.5%
Affinity 0.02
Eldrazi and Taxes 0.02
Infect 0.02
Elves 1.5%
Storm 1.5%
Abzan Midrange 0.01
Black-Green Midrange 0.01
Blue-Red Breach 0.01
Eldrazi Tron 0.01
Jeskai Tempo 0.01
Martyr of Sands 0.01
Ponza 0.01
Titan Shift 0.01
Others 3.5%
Spirits
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Spirits
Props to the Dredge Player for sticking with what he loves and grinding away on MTGO.
EDIT: So what beats that meta? Its not midrange, is it Infect? I dont even know what I would do to attack that.
EDIT x 2: Its 2 KCI, in the top 16, and that weird Affinity build. If it can power up Affinity and thats not a flash in the pan, THEN I think it gets nuked.
Spirits
It's nice to see the Scales version doing well, but I don't think it's the best version. I recently threw Stirrings into my Affinity list though, and I'm loving it. Not sure what to make yet of the Evolutionary Leap but I like it as a 5th Ravager of sorts, and I love the idea of 7 Forest. I think there's a better green card than Scales though.
This is literally not what I said. I said that in many matchups, if you tap out on T2 for an SFM and are on the play, you will either lose outright on T3, or allow the opponent to assemble a boardstate that is overwhelmingly likely to result in a loss (i.e. an unsalvageable board state). See Affinity, Infect, Grishoalbrand, KCI, Tron, Storm, H1 (if they Bolt/Brutality the SFM), Burn, and various other decks. These kind of pithy, quippy responses really don't advance our conversation.
Overall, I just don't know where this whole line of argument is coming. I don't think you are making a very strong case from the start. You started with a "ban Snapcaster" platform, added an "SFM is too strong" position, built in an "SFM in Affinity" argument, and interspersed these with some strange characterizations of Modern decks. Plus mis-characterizations of other users' arguments. I can think of some legitimate arguments against SFM which could be backed by real-world events and data. Unfortunately, I'm just not seeing them here. Rather, your posts suggest to me that you just personally dislike blue-based decks and are afraid of how SFM will improve those decks to where you would dislike them more.
Re: Stirrings
The results of this weekend do not change my opinion that either Stirrings needs to go or Preordain needs to come back. Stoddard's rationale for keeping Preordain banned simply makes no sense to me in a world where Stirrings is this kind of universal enabler for a range of decks. It's possible there's a new reason Preordain is banned that we just don't know about, in which case I guess I defer to Wizards. But based on available information, such as why Preordain was banned in the first place (blue-based combo decks) and why it remains banned (blue-based combo plus consistency tools resulting in games playing the same), it just shouldn't be on the list anymore.
Colorless is not much of a handicap. Non land colorless is a huge handicap.
Spirits
I don't doubt Blue will be well served during the course of three Ravnica Blocks featuring characters counting Ux walkers alone...Jace, Bolas, Teferi, Ral, Tezz and Tamiyo. But so well served it will justify keeping Preordain banned, I have serious doubts about that.
UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Not going to directly debate the merits of a Twin unban, as it tends to torpedo the thread for numerous pages. Rather, I'll simply point to the current diversity of blue decks across MTGO, SCG, the GP circuit, and other tournament settings. Now, let's completely ignore how the Twin ban did or did not enable those decks to succeed. We're just acknowledging that there are more non-Twin blue decks on the GP/PT scene today than in the Twin era (9% then vs. 17.5% now). Given that, let's say we are asking the hyper-conservative Wizards R&D department. Remember that this is the R&D that took years to unban a card (JTMS) that did almost nothing. Same with BB, AV, Nacatl, and others. Given their track record, which is indicative of their hyper-conservative thinking, why on earth are the going to unban a potentially polarizing card like Twin in this diverse blue metagame? Again, for all the Twin supporters, this is not an argument directed at you. I am simply looking at R&D and not envisioning a near future where R&D evaluates Twin as a card that should be unbanned.