MTG Salvation

Quote from idSurge »

Quote from tronix »

likewise if people start packing hate against you, you go to the next level and look for ways around it. that is what meta-gaming is - the game above and outside the game. maybe modern has just been in this non-meta state with all its 'diversity' that people dont see it like that anymore. fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your perspective, a common characteristic of top modern decks has been their robust and therefore hard to pin nature. decks need to be able to do everything, sideboards need to cover everything, etc. so more often we see entire decks rise up to counter one another, which drives people to the idea of needing to be able to switch decks to keep up.

I honestly wonder if thats part of what some people think makes Modern great. The ability to not be meta gamed against, which we know in smaller meta's is not possible to avoid.

It's also abundantly clear that you are better off being a "questions" deck instead of an "answers" deck. And the more your "questions" are weird, wacky, hard to interact with, narrow, and powerful, the better your deck will be.

Having spent the last week or so jamming a Jeskai Phoenix build with 0 counterspells, it became abundantly clear. It's just better to say "here's my thing. deal with it or die" than simply hope to have the answer when you need it.

Side note: thank goodness we don't have such awful and broken nonsense like Stoneforge Mystic in the format.

Quote from mapccu »

One of the things I dislike about the game is people specifically hating on particular decks locally. If all I can afford is fetchless storm and I run hot one week, how depressing is it for everyone in the room to pack 2-4 dampening spheres next week...it's the pinnacle of poor sportsmanship in my eyes.

sorry to hear that. How about rotating the decks you use so that they don't get hated out? Like for example, bringing a different deck every 2 weeks.

my playtest partners are a Grixis Shadow player and a Merfolk player.. and I always keep a few sideboard cards to use against their decks, as they always have a few sideboard cards against mine as well.

I agree with the rest of you. Ban Choke!

Local metagaming is hilarious, there was once when half the room switched to Ponza after my second week taking Titanshift. But that doesn't speak to the state of the format as a whole.

I love my BG/x but I don't like feeling gimped. Tons of Tron and UW control these days. Dredge I can handle, I even like the deck myself.

Big Mana>slow fair>fast unfair>big mana

Feels good to me. Rock/paper/scissors

That's a lot of optimism right there.

Bad, sorcery speed Helix seems like Draft fodder to me. I don't think arguing that Exarch is a value card is going to get you anywhere, and I'm not sure if anyone would consider Allies a viable, meta-shaping deck.

Unearth has the most potential of the cards you listed, but Claim//Fame is almost the same card, with a different upside, and it sees approaching 0 play. There might be some cheeky Abzan lists that Unearth a Renegade Rallier or Eternal Witness, but outside of that Jank I don't think any deck outside of Counters Company could use it (and they already had access to Claim, and don't really care about 3 cmc over 2).

Smiting Helix is like a fixed creeping chill.

it comes up every so often that people offer the argument about different modern play experiences based on the environment, usually revolving around the format being better than the harshest criticisms imply for the average player at the local level. the implication being that its what the majority of modern players experience therefore it is a better representation of the format.

for anyone who thinks this: ask yourself why you are settling for mediocrity. why cant the format be that enjoyable in ALL environments? if the local level, or whatever scope, is generally agreed upon as being better/more fun/whatever than some other level or scope within the same format isnt it wizards prerogative, as game designers and peddlers of 'fun', to take steps and align the two?

My post about my local meta wasn't meant as a boohoo session, just that I feel for newer players and the format tends to gravitate towards super linear aggressive strats and the deck building cost of hating someone out far outstrips someone's ability to pivot into another deck or archetype to compensate. I should have been more precise. That's what I'd like to see change. I'm all for reading a meta and packing appropriate interaction - but I don't do it to someone who I know is is on a cheap deck because they're financially constrained.

I've had people sideboard in enchantment hate against me while playing scapeshift because someone mentioned in a Facebook chat that I was running bug teachings the week before. That's metagaming sure, and it gave me an advantage g2 because they boarded wrong, but that's kinda too far in my book. Then telling me about after the game was pretty bad sportsmanship to me. I guess I'm a threat? I guess the $5 store credit is worth it? I dunno.

This is coming from someone who does have a lot of decks. I'm 80-100% on almost all T1-3 decks and can play some variant of all of them. The cost for me to hate a specific deck or player out of my meta is cheaper and poses less deckbuikding constraints than it takes for that person to build their deck. Sure at the higher end tournaments you can't metagame like that so you have a more resilient and broad game plan/side board. That's not where the majority of magic is being played...

I really do want the format to slow down some, and I was kind of hoping the set would have had more cards like FoN that push for more interactive games of magic. Now that the full spoiler is up I don't see much impact outside the canopy lands? There will be some, but nothing screams build around me really.

Quote from tronix »

it comes up every so often that people offer the argument about different modern play experiences based on the environment, usually revolving around the format being better than the harshest criticisms imply for the average player at the local level. the implication being that its what the majority of modern players experience therefore it is a better representation of the format.

for anyone who thinks this: ask yourself why you are settling for mediocrity. why cant the format be that enjoyable in ALL environments? if the local level, or whatever scope, is generally agreed upon as being better/more fun/whatever than some other level or scope within the same format isnt it wizards prerogative, as game designers and peddlers of 'fun', to take steps and align the two?

How, then, would you propose an upgrade to the "fun" level of competitive modern? If the tiny slice of players represented on MTGS is at all indicative of the larger population, then modern would be an intensely personal experience to many. Many players base their personal views about the format on the state of a favored deck or archetype, and some attempt to generalize personal experiences to the entire format/playerbase. Where the LGS comes in, then, would be as a means of personal expression. That players use the decks they enjoy and/or own is a common mantra on this forum, and it's something that can be applied more easily to the LGS level than highly competitive tournaments, for which the metagame holds more sway, barring the odd rogue deck. If the real gap is between what is dictated by one's own whims and what is dictated by results and statistics (not mutually exclusive of one another, of course), then what would the best approach to attain your alignment?

Gotta say I'm also disappointed by MH, looks like 60% draft fodder, 20% Commander and 20% Modern maybes. Laughed at the Commander Masters meme.

My idea of a MH draft is to pick some Fatal Pushes or Accumulated Knowledge at common, Sinkholes and Berserks at uncommon and Armageddons or Back to Basics at rare. I'm surprised that even in the set for Spikes they didn't dare to put land destruction that actually cuts people of mana.

But whatever, at least my Life from the Loam deck will lose by having different cards uncast in the hand this time.

Well, 20% Modern maybes is still almost 50 new cards that might be Modern playable. That's huge. We usually get what, like 2 or 3 cards from each Standard set? And I like what they did. We got some powerful answers, which is something the format has sorely lacked from its inception, but we also got a lot of support for several different archetypes that have been underpowered or just didn't exist before, like Slivers, Ninjas, Goblins, Seismic Loam, support for some kind of Sultai snow deck, an Astral Drift blink deck, some strong tempo threats, and some sweet new lands. There's a lot to like in this set for Modern.

This is Quantity compared to Quality when looking at Modern Horizons compared to War of the Spark.

Quote from javert »

Gotta say I'm also disappointed by MH, looks like 60% draft fodder, 20% Commander and 20% Modern maybes. Laughed at the Commander Masters meme.

My idea of a MH draft is to pick some Fatal Pushes or Accumulated Knowledge at common, Sinkholes and Berserks at uncommon and Armageddons or Back to Basics at rare. I'm surprised that even in the set for Spikes they didn't dare to put land destruction that actually cuts people of mana.

But whatever, at least my Life from the Loam deck will lose by having different cards uncast in the hand this time.

I really don't understand the negative reception to MH. It feels like many of the people who are disappointed set their own expectations and standards based on personal preferences, and then when Wizards failed to meet those subjective, personal, impossible expectations, they were disappointed/frustrated. Can people who are unhappy with MH actually cite a Wizards pitch, advertisement, promise, or claim that justified expectations of stuff like Sinkhole at uncommon?

From what I've found, here was the most definitive promise Wizards made about MH: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/announcing-modern-horizons-2019-02-28

"Powerful new options mixed with flavorful updates for favorite characters means Modern Horizons is going to be a wild ride. The set is full of cards that build up favorite Modern strategies, create new ones, and bring plenty of flavor to matches where Modern cards are legal."

Breaking this promise down, I'd identify five distinct expectations we should have:

1. "Powerful new options"
2. "Flavorful updates for favorite characters"
3. "Cards that build up favorite Modern strategies"
4. Cards that "create new ones"
5. Cards that "bring plenty of flavor to matches where Modern cards are legal

Three of these have unquestionably been met: 1, 2, and 5. Two of those objectives are flavor-based, not even power-based, and #1 has plenty of cards that fit the mold. 3 and 5 remain to be seen. I will remind everyone that even pros and pundits are notoriously inconsistent at card evaluation. Almost everyone missed the impact of stuff like Narset in non-rotating formats. Literally every author I've read missed Arclight Phoenix as a Tier 1 Modern enabler.

If someone can point me towards a different promise or advertisement by Wizards that promised something else/more, I'd love to read it. But most people who are disappointed with MH are not citing a claim that was unmet.

What's the expected amount of cards from a Standard set expected to impact Modern? Like 1 to 4? WAR certainly seems above average, and that might be contributing to the disappointed feelings. I think apart from the Canopy Lands, there are probably 4 to 6 cards that will impact Modern immediately and probably some more that will become important if they print the right tools. I think that's pretty good to be honest.

Am I disappointed? Ya. Do I know better? Ya. Do I care that I know better? no...

0-5, where as 0 and 5 are both extremes. On average you are at 2 cards.

Currently I'm looking at the following cards:

So I'm looking at roughly 20 cards where I'm quite confident, that they will make a splash, which is honestly way more than what I originally expected (expected roughly 10 high impact cards).

Greetings,
Kathal

Got plenty of new toys from Modern Horizons. No complaints.
They also gave a marit enchantment version, ice snake, and a stag for me to brew a janky snow themed deck. Although my favorite card from the set has to be Mirrodin Besieged.

Have just ordered around 50+ cards from SCG today. Most of those from MH.

My issue with these "new toys" is that many of them are just not good enough to do anything meaningful in a format as brutally fast, efficient, and punishing as Modern.

That said, I'm certainly buying some (especially blue Force and Charm), but I am considerably less enthusiastic for the set overall than I was before spoilers started. It feels like, of the cards that are actually for Modern (and not Commander/Draft stuff) they designed cards for a format that doesn't exist anymore. At least not at a competitive level. And Modern outside of the competitive level has been wonderfully great and diverse for nearly its entire existence. That lower part of the format didn't need help. It's always been great.

What needed help was the top. The obnoxious. The awful. The things which end games through awful play patterns, high variance, and horrendous gameplay for players on both sides. Those are the issues that should be addressed. The blue black and green Forces are a step in the right direction, but looking at everything else, it's hard not to feel disappointed.

And after getting New Karn Wished last night, multiple times, getting narrow sideboard hate cards that locked me out of the game, I had to revel at the fact that Birthing Pod and Stoneforge Mystic are banned because they "limit design space" for creatures and equipment, but Karn and Stirrings don't apparently limit design space for colorless cards. Oh, and at least Twin won the game on the spot, instead of making you have to decide if you're going to concede, or slog out several turns of unbearable, unplayable nonsense to hope to get out of it, because your opponent has not displayed a win condition. Also, I can't wait for Force of Negation after getting T1 Chalice'd on the draw with SSG. Modern is a great format.

Quote from cfusionpm »

My issue with these "new toys" is that many of them are just not good enough to do anything meaningful in a format as brutally fast, efficient, and punishing as Modern.

I will again remind you and everyone else that even the best players are very inconsistent at card evaluation. If we go by the Jeff Hoogland metric of "brutally fast, efficient, and punishing" (terms I regularly hear when I've seen his stream), we would not expect to see things like Narset appearing in Ux strategies. Good players miss card evaluations because it's a hard business. Some MH cards are clear hits: FoN, FoV, Canopy lands, Ouphe, and a few others. Many, many more are uncertain. We'll need to see actual lists and tournaments to weigh in on the set's power. There's nothing predictive about saying a set and its cards aren't good enough for Modern. That's the default, null hypothesis for every set and you'd be right for 95%+ of cards in a set.

And after getting New Karn Wished last night, multiple times, getting narrow sideboard hate cards that locked me out of the game, I had to revel at the fact that Birthing Pod and Stoneforge Mystic are banned because they "limit design space" for creatures and equipment, but Karn and Stirrings don't apparently limit design space for colorless cards. Oh, and at least Twin won the game on the spot, instead of making you have to decide if you're going to concede, or slog out several turns of unbearable, unplayable nonsense to hope to get out of it, because your opponent has not displayed a win condition. Also, I can't wait for Force of Negation after getting T1 Chalice'd on the draw with SSG. Modern is a great format.

Maybe this is your personal opinion, but it feels like another rehash of Hoogland sound bytes. I literally heard him complaining about the Birthing Pod and SFM "design space" ban decision in the last 2-3 days in an AM stream. Same for Stirrings/Karn/colorless design space, in that same stream. Collectively, these are more arguments that just aren't in dialogue with the stated reasons for Wizards' decisions. From the Birthing Pod ban: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/banned-and-restricted-announcement-2015-01-19

"Over the past year, Birthing Pod decks have won significantly more Grand Prix than any other Modern decks and compose the largest percentage of the field. Each year, new powerful options are printed, most recently Siege Rhino. Over time, this creates a growing gap between the strength of the Pod deck and other creature decks. Pod won five of the twelve Grand Prix over the past year, including winning the last two. The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup. In the interest of supporting a diverse format, Birthing Pod is banned."

In this ban justification, we see about four reasons for banning Pod, only one of which suggests a design space influence to the ban:

1. "Birthing Pod decks have won significantly more Grand Prix than any other Modern decks"
2. They "compose the largest percentage of the field"
3. "Each year, new powerful options are printed... this creates a growing gap between the strength of the Pod deck and other creature decks." (Design space reason)
4. "The high percentage of the field playing Pod suppresses decks, especially other creature decks, that have an unfavorable matchup"

It's extremely disingenuous to try discrediting the Pod ban based on just one of its four justifications while ignoring the other three, especially when the other three are consistent measures used by Wizards for banning cards. I suspect the design space consideration, #3 above, is far less influential than #1, #2, and #4. This is because Wizards consistently cites #1, #2, and #4 as reasons to ban a card, rarely citing #3. They certainly never cited #3 in the Song, BBE, DRS, TC, Twin, Bloom, Probe, GGT, and KCI bans, but they cited variations of #1, #2, and #4 in most of those. It's fine to criticize a ban like Pod, but at least do so on the actual terms of the ban. Just attacking it because of the "design space" reason is very misleading.

I think the claim of not enough 'new toys' just misses the mark a bit.

Full Disclosure: I wanted things like Daze, Hymn, Counterspell, SFM, and Twin. (Yeah I know, 2 of those are just banned.)

What we got: Outside the Horizon Lands, we got some role players that MAY see play in top decks (that would be UW, Phoenix, Humans, Tron, Dredge for those keeping score) of which there are probably less than 10.

We got 10-15 'Teir 2' type cards, which is totally fine because thats the Modern people think of when they say 'Modern is Great and Diverse'.

We got 15-25 or so brewable cards as well, that maybe do something, and maybe sit in waiting for the next set, which btw is only a month away.

So, did I get what I want? Not at all. Did we get some cool cards, and some build arounds that while not at that "5 top decks" level are still plenty viable, if not OPTIMAL? Yeah, I think we did.

Did we also get some cards that maybe dont get there yet, but are on their way? Yeah, we got a bunch of those too.

All told? With Magic 2020 coming right up, with this set, and with War of the Spark still messing around in the format? I'm reasonably satisfied until I quit and go play Warcraft Classic.

Quote from BlazingRagnarok »

Quote from tronix »

it comes up every so often that people offer the argument about different modern play experiences based on the environment, usually revolving around the format being better than the harshest criticisms imply for the average player at the local level. the implication being that its what the majority of modern players experience therefore it is a better representation of the format.

for anyone who thinks this: ask yourself why you are settling for mediocrity. why cant the format be that enjoyable in ALL environments? if the local level, or whatever scope, is generally agreed upon as being better/more fun/whatever than some other level or scope within the same format isnt it wizards prerogative, as game designers and peddlers of 'fun', to take steps and align the two?

How, then, would you propose an upgrade to the "fun" level of competitive modern? If the tiny slice of players represented on MTGS is at all indicative of the larger population, then modern would be an intensely personal experience to many. Many players base their personal views about the format on the state of a favored deck or archetype, and some attempt to generalize personal experiences to the entire format/playerbase. Where the LGS comes in, then, would be as a means of personal expression. That players use the decks they enjoy and/or own is a common mantra on this forum, and it's something that can be applied more easily to the LGS level than highly competitive tournaments, for which the metagame holds more sway, barring the odd rogue deck. If the real gap is between what is dictated by one's own whims and what is dictated by results and statistics (not mutually exclusive of one another, of course), then what would the best approach to attain your alignment?

sry didnt notice your response. to answer your question: i have no clue the best way to.

the point i was trying to make was an abstraction. the 'better/worse' or 'more fun/less fun' qualifications arent clear cut or anything, and the set of iterations or potential improvements might as well be limitless. rather i was objecting to the notion that, as you pointed out, the 'gap' between what is experiences at the local level and what is experienced in highly competitive settings is some absolute or inevitability, that it cant be helped; which is nonsense.

for example you mentioned elements such as a level of personal expression and the metagame. its not as if these concepts are entirely mutually exclusive. when people play to compete, or in other words win, it stands to reason you choose among the best methods to do so; however among that set of options could include an outlet you identify with (ie personal expression) and enjoy.

now im not saying that everyone needs to be satisfied, or have their pet decks lifted up, because that is impossible. however can anyone honestly say that modern in the most competitive settings cant be balanced to include more options of play styles, or that the balance of options right now is even particularly good?

for example the seemingly never ending bemoaning of (blue) control players. others are quick to come to the defense of the format, especially recently, saying stuff like 'UW control is one of the best decks, quit whining'. wtf? its one variation of a control deck when other strategies have multiple distinct options. im not gonna give wizards a pat on the back for that.

so in short, the format can be better in the abstract, and that probably involves identifying and translating what is happening at the local level to the competitive one. how that is done, or what it involves; i dont know. that is for wizards to figure out.

Quote from tronix »

now im not saying that everyone needs to be satisfied, or have their pet decks lifted up, because that is impossible. however can anyone honestly say that modern in the most competitive settings cant be balanced to include more options of play styles, or that the balance of options right now is even particularly good?

for example the seemingly never ending bemoaning of (blue) control players. others are quick to come to the defense of the format, especially recently, saying stuff like 'UW control is one of the best decks, quit whining'. wtf? its one variation of a control deck when other strategies have multiple distinct options. im not gonna give wizards a pat on the back for that.

so in short, the format can be better in the abstract, and that probably involves identifying and translating what is happening at the local level to the competitive one. how that is done, or what it involves; i dont know. that is for wizards to figure out.

We know what this would take however. Power Creep can only go on for so long. To really open up the format to the majority of decks, those that are outside the 'winners' meta, would require multiple bannings, and thats just not a tenable solution to the majority of the player base, or key unbannings.

Its really that simple.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Quote from cfusionpm »

My issue with these "new toys" is that many of them are just not good enough to do anything meaningful in a format as brutally fast, efficient, and punishing as Modern.

I will again remind you and everyone else that even the best players are very inconsistent at card evaluation. If we go by the Jeff Hoogland metric of "brutally fast, efficient, and punishing" (terms I regularly hear when I've seen his stream), we would not expect to see things like Narset appearing in Ux strategies.

I'm not sure where we even disagree on this. Narset sees play exactly because it is punishing and efficient. It is a difficult-to-remove card which significantly neuters one of the top decks and considerably hurts several others that rely on cantrips or looting effects. Same goes for new Teferi, Ashiok, and Karn. They appear like they will have a greater impact on Modern than anything in Horizons and have been picked up by players almost immediately.

And after getting New Karn Wished last night, multiple times, getting narrow sideboard hate cards that locked me out of the game, I had to revel at the fact that Birthing Pod and Stoneforge Mystic are banned because they "limit design space" for creatures and equipment, but Karn and Stirrings don't apparently limit design space for colorless cards. Oh, and at least Twin won the game on the spot, instead of making you have to decide if you're going to concede, or slog out several turns of unbearable, unplayable nonsense to hope to get out of it, because your opponent has not displayed a win condition. Also, I can't wait for Force of Negation after getting T1 Chalice'd on the draw with SSG. Modern is a great format.

Maybe this is your personal opinion, but it feels like another rehash of Hoogland sound bytes. I literally heard him complaining about the Birthing Pod and SFM "design space" ban decision in the last 2-3 days in an AM stream. Same for Stirrings/Karn/colorless design space, in that same stream.

I am attacking the design space because it is often the main justification for Stoneforge, and was a justification for Pod. I honestly was not around much when Pod was legal, so I don't really know specifics or player feelings, just that "design space" was often a talking point, in addition to its dominance.

Either way, the bottom line is it's frustrating to see cards break design space, such as new Karn, when considerably less powerful things (like Stoneforge) are deemed "too good" for Modern. It was brought to my attention after several fairly obnoxious interactions with Karn in multiple decks last night. Repeatable tutor for narrow hate artifacts that can end in a total lockout seems pretty good.

Especially since WOTC nerf equipment anyway. So its disingenuous you expect the new Swords to be on the level of Fire and Ice if this argument was true.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Quote from cfusionpm »

My issue with these "new toys" is that many of them are just not good enough to do anything meaningful in a format as brutally fast, efficient, and punishing as Modern.

I will again remind you and everyone else that even the best players are very inconsistent at card evaluation. If we go by the Jeff Hoogland metric of "brutally fast, efficient, and punishing" (terms I regularly hear when I've seen his stream), we would not expect to see things like Narset appearing in Ux strategies.

I'm not sure where we even disagree on this. Narset sees play exactly because it is punishing and efficient. It is a difficult-to-remove card which significantly neuters one of the top decks and considerably hurts several others that rely on cantrips or looting effects. Same goes for new Teferi, Ashiok, and Karn. They appear like they will have a greater impact on Modern than anything in Horizons and have been picked up by players almost immediately.

Narset has no impact on the board-state when it enters and is a terrible T3 play in numerous matchups. At the time, that's probably why most players dismissed her. In hindsight, it's easy to see why Narset is good in Modern and why everyone got it wrong. But at the time of WAR's release, there were very, very few players to my knowledge that knew how good that card would be. PVDR didn't even mention her in his review, Lepore missed her too, Maynard didn't talk about her, Dominguez identified probably the most cards that might be playable and STILL missed her, etc. Only one author I know of actually mentioned her: Gottlieb on SCG. And he ranked her at #9 and said "What is really holding Narset back in Modern is how few archetypes are presently built around card advantage and selection," which is basically the opposite of part of your assessment. All of this is to say that the "fast/brutal/efficient" test is not always good in Modern, and that card evaluation is very difficult and inconsistent. MH could have many more Narset scenarios where the overwhelming majority of evaluators just miss a great card.

I am attacking the design space because it is often the main justification for Stoneforge, and was a justification for Pod. I honestly was not around much when Pod was legal, so I don't really know specifics or player feelings, just that "design space" was often a talking point, in addition to its dominance.

Either way, the bottom line is it's frustrating to see cards break design space, such as new Karn, when considerably less powerful things (like Stoneforge) are deemed "too good" for Modern.

Quote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »

Especially since WOTC nerf equipment anyway. So its disingenuous you expect the new Swords to be on the level of Fire and Ice if this argument was true.

Again, I am not aware of any Wizards sources where design space limitations are "the main justification" for the SFM ban or her continued banning. I know people like to claim they say this, but where's the citation? Here are the only sources I am familiar with where Wizards officially weighs in on the SFM ban.

Original ban rationale: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/welcome-modern-world-2011-08-12
"Stoneforge Mystic has by now made its mark on every format from Standard to Legacy, and Stoneforge-based blue control decks regularly do well in Legacy tournaments. Porting such decks into Modern was a trivial affair, and resulted in very powerful decks. We prefer to just ban this card rather than risk yet another format dominated by Stoneforge Mystic."

Mike Flores on two-drops: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/top-decks/pardon-imposition…-2013-07-02
"The banned Squire, Stoneforge Mystic, is so good they didn't even have to give her 2 power. She has dominated almost every format they let her play in, so hey—preemptively pink-slipped in Modern. "

Stoddard on development mistakes: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/developmental-mistakes-2014-06-13
"The cards where we are wrong and that ended up much more powerful than we had expected are some of the most iconic cards from the last decade—Primeval Titan; Jace, the Mind Sculptor; Stoneforge Mystic; Bitterblossom; Bridge from Below; Tarmogoyf; etc. These cards are not always the most fun to play with or against, and we have subsequently had to ban them from some formats, but the cards still exist in the same form they did when we printed them."

Forsythe Twitter: https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/1087393927454326785
"As @mtg_ianduke mentioned in today’s article, WU Control has the 2nd-most Modern GP Top 8s recently, behind KCI. Jeskai Control is third. Hard to justify a Stoneforge Mystic unban in that environment."
"We have the wider results as well. Control is doing fine by all accounts."

Are there others out there I haven't heard from an official Wizards employee? If there are, please let me know. But I don't think I've seen others. And if these represent the only Wizards quotes on the matter, you'll note none of them mention design space as a limiting factor for an SFM unban. It's all about power level.

Now, the power level justification for an SFM ban is ridiculous. Many of us, you and I included, have been saying that for a while. But if we want to criticize inconsistencies or problems with the SFM ban, let's focus on the real reason Wizards is keeping her banned: a perception of power level. They do not mention design space once, so there's no reason to attack this as the "main justification" for her remaining banned.