Meddling Mage's stock has gone up because Shardless BUG is running a white splash in its sideboard so it has a better combo matchup. Shardless BUG is notoriously awful against Combo, especially storm.
Monastery Mentor can do stupid things in Miracles Countertop shell (you can kill an opponent fast with two tops in play + Mentor) and Miracles is one of the best decks in legacy right now.
Pretty much any fair green deck in legacy like RUG Delver, BUG Delver, Shardless BUG, Jund, Abzan (when someone has the galls to actually play it, I honestly don't think its a bad deck), etc.
The only fair green deck in legacy that doesn't run Goyf to my knowledge is Maverick, but that deck has its own reasons for doing so (ie, it has a Green Sun Zenith toolbox).
for cases like this is what the famous phrase 'there are lies and then there are statistics' was said...
is there ANYONE in here that believes that Meddling Mage, Monastery Mentor and Vendilion Clique are more powerful than SFM?
seriously i want to hear this, anyone?
honestly there should be some tutorial thread one will have to read before being allowed to post in here, like what is card advantage and why it wins games
the arguements pro SFM unban, are becoming more and more ridiculous by the hour
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that table has nothing to do with power level. Its a table that shows which cards are played more, regardless of its power level. The table is not saying that Sage, Mentor or Clique are more powerful than SFM, just that those cards are played more.
This conversation is so wildly off-base at this point that I don't really know how to respond. I tried to propose some Abzan decklists for actual testing but (and this comes as no surprise to me after moderating this thread for almost three years) posters quickly slunk back into theory and rhetoric land. I get that it's safer in theoryland, but we're not going to get anywhere while there.
As I see it, there are three reasons to unban SFM, each of which has at least one potential pitfall and at least one potential way to conduct testing.
UNBAN REASON 1: SFM's presence weakens linear aggro decks so they can't have a large metagame share. OBJECTION 1: SFM weakens these decks too much, effectively pushing them out of the metagame. TEST 1: Run SFM Abzan against Affinity. That's a well-documented 50-50 matchup, and if SFM pushes it to 60-40 or something similar, we would know the card was too strong.
UNBAN REASON 2: White is very weak in Modern and SFM brings the color up to par with the rest. OBJECTION 2: SFM is too good at bringing the color up to par and would leave white with nothing else to do except play SFM. TEST 2: Run a handful of tier 1 matchups with no-SFM white decks and plus-SFM white decks. If the plus SFM white decks always perform better, that could be a problem.
UNBAN REASON 3: SFM isn't as broken as people claim and would slot nicely into Modern's powerful card pool. OBJECTION 3: SFM is actually too powerful and would probably be the best two-drop people can be casting in Modern. TEST 3: In addition to testing SFM Abzan against Affinity, test SFM Abzan against RG Tron. If Abzan's best police deck can't stop it, that could be a problem.
There are different tests we could do for these scenarios, but this is a good starting point. Also, I'm harboring no illusions that these suggestions are a) likely to change the thread culture or b) likely to lead to testing (I'm doing AV+Twin testing so can't do it myself), but they took me ten minutes to write up and if ten minutes of my work can help tame this discussion, that's time well spent for me. Even if I'm not optimistic about the results.
If Wotc feels linear decks need to be slowed, they can unban SotM.
If Wotc feels white needs a boost, They can print something powerful in the next few sets. The dont need to chance loosing SFM on the meta.
Your third issue is all subjective. Some want more power, others are fine with the power level as it is.
Quote from ArcaneFinale »
Can people for the love of god STOP saying this? It isn't true.
Yes, EDH is common, but it's a substantially different format, and saying go play it instead doesn't help.
Saying go play Legacy instead isn't practical. Let me look and see what the closest store playing Legacy is on Wizards of the Coast's store locator, shall I?
110 damn miles.
I would enjoy being able to play Legacy on a consistent basis, but I can't, so telling me to go do that instead is exactly as helpful as telling me to jump to the moon.
Except I am just repeating what Wotc has said about the subject. Aaron Foresyth said SFM, Jace and Gsz have a grave in Modern, if you wish to play those cards, play a format they are legal in.
One last thing, the power of a card is not measured in how much its played in a format. Just because the meta shifts and makes a card unfavorable, does not mean it is still not powerful. The meta is just not favorable to play it.
for cases like this is what the famous phrase 'there are lies and then there are statistics' was said...
is there ANYONE in here that believes that Meddling Mage, Monastery Mentor and Vendilion Clique are more powerful than SFM?
seriously i want to hear this, anyone?
honestly there should be some tutorial thread one will have to read before being allowed to post in here, like what is card advantage and why it wins games
the arguements pro SFM unban, are becoming more and more ridiculous by the hour
You can make a point without being condescending.
There is power in versatility which is why some cards are getting run over SFM in legacy. SFM being more powerful than 3 cards that are more played than it in a different format says exactly nothing about what will happen with it in this format.
Until other people start posting real test results, none of this matters. For every conjectured argument there is an equally valid counter argument. We simply don't know anything without real testing.
For all of you telling us to drop it, no. Clearly there is interest in the subject and if things were so cut and dry than this discussion wouldn't have carried on the way it has. In a ban thread, saying things like "well it's up to WOTC so who cares stop talking about it" doesn't make any sense. We're in this thread to discuss bans, so that's what we're going to do.
I HIGHLY disagree that bob is better than goyf or stoneforge. Heck there was a period this year where jund flat out gave up on bob because he was way too weak to even play. The reason why it helps grixis decks is because junk has to take out creatures for stoneforge to see play. One of the huge factors that people are missing on stoneforge is that she takes up 6-7 slots in a deck to work correctly. That means 6-7 creatures that grixis struggles against (Smiter, kitchen finks, voice of resurgence, etc.) for a stoneforge package. I agree with you that snapcaster is stronger than SFM which is why I think that it's pretty embarrassing that SFM is banned in the first place. Like I discussed initially, it's the main reason why white is the worst color in modern. If you took away tarmogoyf from green it would be in a similar state to be honest.
Card advantage is hands down better then a beater. And thinking getting rid of Goyf would make green bad is funny also. There are decks that run green in the format that dont play Goyf. You dont need Goyf to run green. There are other problems with a color if you need a single card to make it some what playable. But is fine we disagree. Bob wasnt too weak to play, because of the shocks and fetches you took too much self inflicted damage to chance running Bob. But Bob is still flat out card advantage.
On SFM, its a banned card. We will see the effects on the format if its ever unbanned. Something AF has already said probably wont happen. So talk about SFM is just wasted key strokes until Wotc changes their stance on SFM. If you wish to play SFM, there is always Legacy or EDH.
Umm that's just flat out untrue as many pros said that bob was terrible to play at the time. Heck with the last torunament where zoo and burn came back to dominance bob might become completely useless again. The other 2 drops aren't meta dependent to be good cards, they are just good all of the time. And Wizards literally posted no reason why SFM is too strong for this format. In fact, no one really has gave a solid reason as to why this card should stay banned. I mean is a card that takes 2 turns to actually cheat in batterskull really bad enough to ban when we have a format with turn 2/3/4 kills, turn 3 karns, turn 4 ugins? Is cheating in batterskull with a 1/2 body THAT op.
Ok, Bob was never, and has never been a terrible card. Bob fell in popularity due to the massive spike in Burn last year, GP Kobe if I remember right. Jund tried many things to replace him and this is when we saw a shift towards Junk. This in no way makes Bob a bad card, just poorly positioned. After the meta game adapted to Burn, Jund was able to slot Bob back in, and take their typically dominate place again. If instant speed grave hate, or Rest in Peace became a big player in the format, you wouldn't here Snapcaster being called terrible, it just wouldn't be well positioned. In the non burn match ups, Bob was still one of Junds best weapons in that format.
Goyf is powerful because he needs very little support, he is a stand alone card. The other 4 cards of the powerful two drop cycle all need to be built around. Snapcaster needs a fair amount of decent instants to flash back, Bob needs a low curve, Young Pyromancer needs fast mana and plenty of cantrips, and SFM needs two or three decent targets. These all have deck building constraints, but add massive power to a deck, while Goyf doesn't need a ton of support, but his ceiling is much lower. Of of the other four, SFM requires the least amount of work for the power given, and is highly splashable. This is why SFM is an issue. Bloom, Tron, Reanimator, Infect, Affinity, and most other scenarios people want to bring up aren't correct as these decks are whole crafted around that possibility. SFM does not need a whole deck built around it to get the turn three Batterskull, they need four SFM and one Batterskull. If you can't see why that's an issue, I don't know what to tell you.
for cases like this is what the famous phrase 'there are lies and then there are statistics' was said...
is there ANYONE in here that believes that Meddling Mage, Monastery Mentor and Vendilion Clique are more powerful than SFM?
seriously i want to hear this, anyone?
honestly there should be some tutorial thread one will have to read before being allowed to post in here, like what is card advantage and why it wins games
the arguements pro SFM unban, are becoming more and more ridiculous by the hour
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that table has nothing to do with power level. Its a table that shows which cards are played more, regardless of its power level. The table is not saying that Sage, Mentor or Clique are more powerful than SFM, just that those cards are played more.
ofc it has nothing to do with powerlevel, you are preaching to the choir here
but people where using this as an arguement to prove that Tarmogoyf is more pwoerful than SFM
People posted the table because Gkourou said that SFM was played more than Tarmogoyf or Snap. That's it.
Goyf is not played more than SFM or snap.
This is untrue.
Can a legacy player shed some light on this matter please?
We can't have a discussion if people don't even know why they are arguing. If someone responds with something and people respond to something else entirely and put words in people's mouths this can't go anywhere.
i really feel like we shouldn't be unbanning a card that's perfect for a light splash if we want to help white. If stoneforge forced people to actually COMMIT to a white based deck than i think it would be great. But it doesn't at all.
I believe that a JTMS unban is way more probable than a SFM unban.
That said, I don't see Wotc taking a risk with either card.
The thing that needs to be adressed is the following:
Can someone provide a very good reason for why SFM should be unbanned?
I believe that we can fairly easily guess that deck diveristy won't increase; the strong will get stronger, the weak probably weaker. (although that's speculation)
The only "strong argument" I've seen so far is that White, outside path and sideboard cards, i.e. stony silence etc., has no universally played cards, and it's color pie share is lower than the other colors.
That's an argument indeed. The question with this argument however is, does Wotc care about the color pie share?
I do not believe they do, and I am not entirely sure, competitive wise, if they should.
The biggest argument in favor of SFM is that it helps even out the linear / non-linear balance in the format - the totally dominance of linear is what got us on the SFM talk in the first place.
i really feel like we shouldn't be unbanning a card that's perfect for a light splash if we want to help white. If stoneforge forced people to actually COMMIT to a white based deck than i think it would be great. But it doesn't at all.
The solution to the problem is to have cards like Cryptic Command, but in white (I mean at least, in terms of power level) that require a heavy investment towards the color white, not a card that's easily splashed into most decks.
Basically no one (actually no one?) even cared about the posts and I haven't heard them mentioned since then. This is the kind of testing we need more of. You know what we don't need more of? The endless back-and-forth about theoretical and rhetorical examples, completely devoid of any real-world testing or even real-world context. As I said earlier, I'm testing AV+Twin so can't get around to this current ***** show until later, and I not very confident the test results will change much anyway. It's always easier to a) ignore test results, b) criticize them without thinking about how they could be improved or made helpful, and c) stay in theoryland than it is to actually try and make progress on these issues.
@kt: it's because testing like that doesn't really produce valid results for MANY reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware. Just as I feel anecdotal evidence should be rejected, so should non-widespread testing. When I was testing dnt variants I was recording across 250+ games and my collective data on variants spans years and hundreds of pages. For something as radical as an unbanning I would expect the same, but everyone seems to want to play 50 cockatrice games and call it fair.
@kt: it's because testing like that doesn't really produce valid results for MANY reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware. Just as I feel anecdotal evidence should be rejected, so should non-widespread testing. When I was testing dnt variants I was recording across 250+ games and my collective data on variants spans years and hundreds of pages. For something as radical as an unbanning I would expect the same, but everyone seems to want to play 50 cockatrice games and call it fair.
So... even after thousands of test games, decades of collective data and thousands of pages more... it will still not matter at all. We need real data, from real events, with real thousands of players. Not data from 2 or 3 guy's thousands of test games in controlled settings. The only possible way to figure this out will always be the unbanning of the cards that started banned in modern. Anything other than that is mere non-productive theoretical speculation. We need to know the truth, and there is only one way to know it, we need to walk the path. Unban them.
We know some cards that started banned should stay there. Cards like Mental Misstep, Skullclamp and the artifact lands are universally agreed upon as completely broken and not even worth discussing. But cards like JTMS, SFM, SotM & AV, which have the general population pretty much divided as to whether they should be banned or not, should be unbanned because WotC needs to settle the arguments. It is their fault that there is even discussion on these cards because they decided to pre-ban them instead of banning them shortly after the format inception when the cards began putting up numbers to show why the banning was necessary. Had they done it this way Grave Troll and Bitterblossom probably never would have been banned to begin with, which is my biggest issue with the pre-bans. That some pre-bans have been unbanned and showed that WotC had it completely wrong on those cards. This opened the door to the possibility that WotC is wrong in some of the other pre-bans as well.
PS: If anyone else will only reply to this to correct me on what specific cards are agreed upon by the majority as broken and which are not or anything related. You missed the whole point. Don't bother typing it.
@kt: it's because testing like that doesn't really produce valid results for MANY reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware. Just as I feel anecdotal evidence should be rejected, so should non-widespread testing. When I was testing dnt variants I was recording across 250+ games and my collective data on variants spans years and hundreds of pages. For something as radical as an unbanning I would expect the same, but everyone seems to want to play 50 cockatrice games and call it fair.
So... even after thousands of test games, decades of collective data and thousands of pages more... it will still not matter at all. We need real data, from real events, with real thousands of players. Not data from 2 or 3 guy's thousands of test games in controlled settings. The only possible way to figure this out will always be the unbanning of the cards that started banned in modern. Anything other than that is mere non-productive theoretical speculation. We need to know the truth, and there is only one way to know it, we need to walk the path. Unban them.
We know some cards that started banned should stay there. Cards like Mental Misstep, Skullclamp and the artifact lands are universally agreed upon as completely broken and not even worth discussing. But cards like JTMS, SFM, SotM & AV, which have the general population pretty much divided as to whether they should be banned or not, should be unbanned because WotC needs to settle the arguments. It is their fault that there is even discussion on these cards because they decided to pre-ban them instead of banning them shortly after the format inception when the cards began putting up numbers to show why the banning was necessary. Had they done it this way Grave Troll and Bitterblossom probably never would have been banned to begin with, which is my biggest issue with the pre-bans. That some pre-bans have been unbanned and showed that WotC had it completely wrong on those cards. This opened the door to the possibility that WotC is wrong in some of the other pre-bans as well.
PS: If anyone else will only reply to this to correct me on what specific cards are agreed upon by the majority as broken and which are not or anything related. You missed the whole point. Don't bother typing it.
The problem with this thinking is, the format is not regulated by the player base. The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions. We as players have a choice of playing the format they have shaped in their vision, or not. As long as people are putting their butts in the seats for events, Wotc probably is not going to make drastic changes to the ban list. So, all the testing in the world by the player base isnt going to change anything. Its really a lesson in futility. Wasted hours of testing, when those hours could be better used improving current decks for different match ups. Maybe even discovering a new twist on a deck.
@kt: it's because testing like that doesn't really produce valid results for MANY reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware. Just as I feel anecdotal evidence should be rejected, so should non-widespread testing. When I was testing dnt variants I was recording across 250+ games and my collective data on variants spans years and hundreds of pages. For something as radical as an unbanning I would expect the same, but everyone seems to want to play 50 cockatrice games and call it fair.
So... even after thousands of test games, decades of collective data and thousands of pages more... it will still not matter at all. We need real data, from real events, with real thousands of players. Not data from 2 or 3 guy's thousands of test games in controlled settings. The only possible way to figure this out will always be the unbanning of the cards that started banned in modern. Anything other than that is mere non-productive theoretical speculation. We need to know the truth, and there is only one way to know it, we need to walk the path. Unban them.
We know some cards that started banned should stay there. Cards like Mental Misstep, Skullclamp and the artifact lands are universally agreed upon as completely broken and not even worth discussing. But cards like JTMS, SFM, SotM & AV, which have the general population pretty much divided as to whether they should be banned or not, should be unbanned because WotC needs to settle the arguments. It is their fault that there is even discussion on these cards because they decided to pre-ban them instead of banning them shortly after the format inception when the cards began putting up numbers to show why the banning was necessary. Had they done it this way Grave Troll and Bitterblossom probably never would have been banned to begin with, which is my biggest issue with the pre-bans. That some pre-bans have been unbanned and showed that WotC had it completely wrong on those cards. This opened the door to the possibility that WotC is wrong in some of the other pre-bans as well.
PS: If anyone else will only reply to this to correct me on what specific cards are agreed upon by the majority as broken and which are not or anything related. You missed the whole point. Don't bother typing it.
The problem with this thinking is, the format is not regulated by the player base. The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions. We as players have a choice of playing the format they have shaped in their vision, or not. As long as people are putting their butts in the seats for events, Wotc probably is not going to make drastic changes to the ban list. So, all the testing in the world by the player base isnt going to change anything. Its really a lesson in futility. Wasted hours of testing, when those hours could be better used improving current decks for different match ups. Maybe even discovering a new twist on a deck.
That... was the whole point. That testing and speculation won't change anything. This is why there is no other possible way to figure this out other than unbanning them, specially after we've seen cards unbanned and proven not to be broken as originally thought of. Testing and speculation will always come up short of the real deal and will be endlessly debated about. Real gameplay is the only definitive evidence for or against these cards. But by the looks of your post we should just shut up and let WotC do its thing and this thread should be locked up and forgotten as if it never existed. Every single post and discussion in here has been a complete waste of time and effort because in the end "WotC makes the decisions." and we matter not.
But the player base does regulate the format. You said it yourself, as long as they put their butts in the seats... WotC's decisions are based on these people's butts, if they keep sitting down WotC just milks the cow. But if they choose to stop putting their butts in the seats for X or Y reason, WotC will be forced to change something drastically, will they not? Then the player base does regulate everything. Money talks.
Really depends on the numbers you are talking. It would take a significant percentage or number to make Wotc realize there is something wrong. They know they cant please everyone. They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong. Its been that way since the inception of the format, yet attendance numbers are still very good. You would have to organize weeks of players boycotting the format before Wotc probably would do anything.
So because the turn 2 kills don't happen every game they are okay to exist? That seems like an extremely flimsy argument since wizards themselves had said that this format isn't supposed to have that.
You're right it's a flimsy argument. Good thing that's not the argument I made! I didn't say the turn 2 kills don't happen every game made it okay. I said the turn 2 kills being very rare made them okay to exist. There is a difference between "not every game" (which could mean anything from 0.00000001% to 99.9%) and "rare" (which obviously shows a very low percentage). Oh, and by the way, Wizards of the Coast said they don't like consistent kills before turn 4. Turn 2 kills occurring rarely is, by definition, not consistent. "Rare" and "consistent" are antonyms.
Amulet has 2 ways to kills you before turn 4.
Burn has something like 12 ways to kill you before turn 4 because every Burn spell could be the one that finishes you off. This doesn't mean anything.
One of those ways is by an enchantment.
Not sure how that's relevant.
But don't worry because every fair deck needs to mainboard thoughtseize/inquisiton just to deal with that which forces every control deck into bg/grixis (which is our current issue today with fair decks).
You can get killed on turn 1 in Legacy, but don't worry because every fair deck needs to mainboard Force of Will just to deal with that which forces every deck into Blue (which is our current issue today with fair decks).
You don't see the big dissonance here? You can't slam Modern for requiring specific cards to deal with the fast combo decks while that's true in Legacy as well! Heck it's even more true in Legacy because those fast decks are not only faster than the ones in Modern, but far more consistent at being able to win quickly as well, making having the all-encompassing answer cards even more critical.
Essentially, your argument is to take a bunch of corner case scenarios, act like they're far more common than they are, then make the completely nonsensical claim that fair decks "can't do anything" against them despite the fact they clearly can.
Changing the subject here; remember a month ago when eveyone and their mother were clamouring for a ban aimed at Lantern? I have to say, Lantern vs UR Storm is one of the most entertaining match ups I've ever played. If you are having issues with Lantern give Storm a shot, just run a single Blood Crypt and four Vampiric Links in the side for the burn match up.
Really depends on the numbers you are talking. It would take a significant percentage or number to make Wotc realize there is something wrong. They know they cant please everyone. They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong. Its been that way since the inception of the format, yet attendance numbers are still very good. You would have to organize weeks of players boycotting the format before Wotc probably would do anything.
It is nice that you changed your stance from "the format is not regulated by the player base" to "Really depends on the numbers". Though you contradict yourself a bit when you say "The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions." which means that WotC doesn't take player base opinions in consideration when making decisions and then in the next post you say "They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong." which shows WotC does pay attention to the player base opinion... But while it is nice that you are open minded to change your mind... thats not the point we were addressing, is it? We weren't addressing who gets to make decisions in the game or how they make those decisions. We were talking about SFM and the irrelevancy of anything short of unbanning SFm and some of the more controversial pre-bans as a metric to asses their real power level in the format. Is there any way, short of unbanning, to assess their real power level in modern? No, there is not.
@kt: it's because testing like that doesn't really produce valid results for MANY reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware. Just as I feel anecdotal evidence should be rejected, so should non-widespread testing. When I was testing dnt variants I was recording across 250+ games and my collective data on variants spans years and hundreds of pages. For something as radical as an unbanning I would expect the same, but everyone seems to want to play 50 cockatrice games and call it fair.
So... even after thousands of test games, decades of collective data and thousands of pages more... it will still not matter at all. We need real data, from real events, with real thousands of players. Not data from 2 or 3 guy's thousands of test games in controlled settings. The only possible way to figure this out will always be the unbanning of the cards that started banned in modern. Anything other than that is mere non-productive theoretical speculation. We need to know the truth, and there is only one way to know it, we need to walk the path. Unban them.
We know some cards that started banned should stay there. Cards like Mental Misstep, Skullclamp and the artifact lands are universally agreed upon as completely broken and not even worth discussing. But cards like JTMS, SFM, SotM & AV, which have the general population pretty much divided as to whether they should be banned or not, should be unbanned because WotC needs to settle the arguments. It is their fault that there is even discussion on these cards because they decided to pre-ban them instead of banning them shortly after the format inception when the cards began putting up numbers to show why the banning was necessary. Had they done it this way Grave Troll and Bitterblossom probably never would have been banned to begin with, which is my biggest issue with the pre-bans. That some pre-bans have been unbanned and showed that WotC had it completely wrong on those cards. This opened the door to the possibility that WotC is wrong in some of the other pre-bans as well.
PS: If anyone else will only reply to this to correct me on what specific cards are agreed upon by the majority as broken and which are not or anything related. You missed the whole point. Don't bother typing it.
While I get the frustration with not having given those cards a chance in the format, releasing them onto the format for a test period of sorts really throws the format into disarray, and even then people will want to revisit it and try again a few years or so down the line (look at the people who suggest BBE and DRS as examples) it would not end until they came off. I don't really have a desire to play in a format like that, so if they DO come off I want it to be for good. The thing is I don't think any card that pushes the power level of the format forward SHOULD come off. Unbans being used to address balance issues is questionable at best to me.
i really feel like we shouldn't be unbanning a card that's perfect for a light splash if we want to help white. If stoneforge forced people to actually COMMIT to a white based deck than i think it would be great. But it doesn't at all.
Coming from a Legacy background I have the experience, that SFM in fact helps W decks more than other decks light splashing W. The reason is that W based decks need to play many creatures that often become useless in "fair" fights, because they can't attack through Goyfs, Strix, True Name Nemesis, Pyromancer Tokens, Mentor Tokens, Deathrite Shamans etc. SFM is the card that breaks such stalements for those creature decks by providing Jitte and Swords, while also making agressive decks more managable by having a creature that has to be bolted and give a means of late game life gain. U based decks often don't need such a card, because they either need speed to close out games while sitting behind a counter wall or need creatures that can't be handled by most popular means to gain another angle of threads. SFM doesn't fit those bills.
So my conclusion is that powerlevel is always relative to the meta you are facing. If you want a card that can easily break stallmates, win the game on its own, help you against agressive decks, trade favourably against single target removal and have enough space to spare 6-7 slots, SFM is extremly strong. If you want speed to close out games, disruption against unfair decks, a card that is resilent against almost every played removal, cards that are good against every MU, there are better options in Legacy and Vintage (and in my opinion even Modern).
This is why creature based decks will take SFM over pretty much every other creature card and decks with a lot of removal and disruption currently favor cards like Goyf and SCM and decks which are disruption light (especially against spells) rather play Clique and/or Meidling Mage.
i really feel like we shouldn't be unbanning a card that's perfect for a light splash if we want to help white. If stoneforge forced people to actually COMMIT to a white based deck than i think it would be great. But it doesn't at all.
Coming from a Legacy background I have the experience, that SFM in fact helps W decks more than other decks light splashing W. The reason is that W based decks need to play many creatures that often become useless in "fair" fights, because they can't attack through Goyfs, Strix, True Name Nemesis, Pyromancer Tokens, Mentor Tokens, Deathrite Shamans etc. SFM is the card that breaks such stalements for those creature decks by providing Jitte and Swords, while also making agressive decks more managable by having a creature that has to be bolted and give a means of late game life gain. U based decks often don't need such a card, because they either need speed to close out games while sitting behind a counter wall or need creatures that can't be handled by most popular means to gain another angle of threads. SFM doesn't fit those bills.
So my conclusion is that powerlevel is always relative to the meta you are facing. If you want a card that can easily break stallmates, win the game on its own, help you against agressive decks, trade favourably against single target removal and have enough space to spare 6-7 slots, SFM is extremly strong. If you want speed to close out games, disruption against unfair decks, a card that is resilent against almost every played removal, cards that are good against every MU, there are better options in Legacy and Vintage (and in my opinion even Modern).
This is why creature based decks will take SFM over pretty much every other creature card and decks with a lot of removal and disruption currently favor cards like Goyf and SCM and decks which are disruption light (especially against spells) rather play Clique and/or Meidling Mage.
The reason why Brainstorm decks do not plsy Stoneforge is because they are trying to police the format and currently the things that a deck must deal with to even be consistently competitive are being sble to beat the counter/top with instsnt dpeed terminus and random fast combo decks. Abrupt decay is the clesnest answer yo a resolved counterbslance while brainstorm and force of will gives you a way to beat fast combo and be condistent. This means that fair midrange or aggro/control strategies are pigeonholed into sultai to compete. You also get deathrite and shardless agent which are powerhouses hrnce why the white for stoneforge and swords to plowshares is not worth it in legacy in those kind of strategies since anything with creatures must be able to deal with the counterbalance lock and large amount of removal from miracles while still being able to fight combo. If abrupt decay had white in its cost instead of black or green stoneforge would be in those midrange or aggro/vonttol decks.
Really depends on the numbers you are talking. It would take a significant percentage or number to make Wotc realize there is something wrong. They know they cant please everyone. They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong. Its been that way since the inception of the format, yet attendance numbers are still very good. You would have to organize weeks of players boycotting the format before Wotc probably would do anything.
It is nice that you changed your stance from "the format is not regulated by the player base" to "Really depends on the numbers". Though you contradict yourself a bit when you say "The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions." which means that WotC doesn't take player base opinions in consideration when making decisions and then in the next post you say "They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong." which shows WotC does pay attention to the player base opinion... But while it is nice that you are open minded to change your mind... thats not the point we were addressing, is it? We weren't addressing who gets to make decisions in the game or how they make those decisions. We were talking about SFM and the irrelevancy of anything short of unbanning SFm and some of the more controversial pre-bans as a metric to asses their real power level in the format. Is there any way, short of unbanning, to assess their real power level in modern? No, there is not.
I didnt change anything. I explained how, why the player base doesnt regulate the format. It would take a large portion of the player base to boycott the format to make Wotc do something they feel was correct for the format. The player base doesnt have that kind of organization. Wotc would have to see a dramatic drop in numbers across all levels of Modern play.
Wotc does regulate the format. They have their finger on the pulse of the format, and in a larger aspect, the game in general. Some yearn for the days of late 90s early 2000s and think the game was better then. Others (like me) feel the game is much better now then it was 15 or so years ago. Like I have always said, find a format you like to play and play it. stop trying to make every format the same. Or just because you cant afford a format, dont try and ruin another format you can.
As for the power level of SFM, they can use data from other formats to understand what it would do to Modern and what would be needed to keep SFM in check and not to warp the format. When the person who is the head of the ban list for Modern thinks a card is/was a mistake to make, I doubt you are going to get him to change his mind on the card. I just wish they would ban the rest of the cards they feel were design mistakes. Some people just need to move on and understand you will probably never get to play a certain card in the format, at least not this weekend you wont.
Quote from Ignithas1 »
Coming from a Legacy background I have the experience
I touched on this a few pages back. People that play Legacy want Modern to be closer to Legacy so they try and use Legacy mentality to justify the safety of SFM in that format as a reason to unban it in Modern. Because we have one card it seems everyone keeps bringing up (K-command) doesnt mean that is enough policing to unban SFM.
Really depends on the numbers you are talking. It would take a significant percentage or number to make Wotc realize there is something wrong. They know they cant please everyone. They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong. Its been that way since the inception of the format, yet attendance numbers are still very good. You would have to organize weeks of players boycotting the format before Wotc probably would do anything.
It is nice that you changed your stance from "the format is not regulated by the player base" to "Really depends on the numbers". Though you contradict yourself a bit when you say "The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions." which means that WotC doesn't take player base opinions in consideration when making decisions and then in the next post you say "They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong." which shows WotC does pay attention to the player base opinion... But while it is nice that you are open minded to change your mind... thats not the point we were addressing, is it? We weren't addressing who gets to make decisions in the game or how they make those decisions. We were talking about SFM and the irrelevancy of anything short of unbanning SFm and some of the more controversial pre-bans as a metric to asses their real power level in the format. Is there any way, short of unbanning, to assess their real power level in modern? No, there is not.
Attacking and trying to criticize everybody's post the time you are clearly wrong from the view of so many people(who are tired of this and do not speak) is not meaningful. It is not producing.
Bocephus is right by the way.
As someone said before(I think bocephus again) there are 2 kind of people:
- Those demanding big changes in Modern's banlist claiming that Modern is sick(*&^%&%$%&^*&^&*). They are the same that either want their deck to become super broken(jeskai, abzan, and i do not know what else), or for some other deck that consistently beats them and trying to ban it, or just low skilled people that do not like format's diversity because it requires even more skill and practise. These are the people that want the format to lean towars Legacy.
- Those that are OK with the banlist, or asking for some small changes(unbans like AV or SOTM or BBE) over 1 or 2 year's time. Meaning slow progress over a healty format they acknowledge. These are the people that do like Modern and that understand how the format should look like.
LOL!!! This thread is really depressing.
1. Stop being so sensitive all the time, you act like a victim whenever an argument is in contrast with your way of thinking, which you assume to be correct at all times. It is obnoxious, please stop. If you can't cope with other's opinions don't bother participating in this thread please.
2. I am not attacking anyone, much less criticizing them, you are the one attacking and criticizing me buddy. I pointed out what I considered contradictions in Bocephus post and politely asked him to just focus on the point at hand rather than branch off into another subject like, who makes decisions in this game or how many people we need to organize to change the game. If you see that as an attack it is not my fault, I merely asked him to stay on subject which was that ktk proposed testing of SFM to get some kind of data as to its power level. Sheepz argued that testing SFM won't be productive enough to justify an unban. I agreed with that, and went further to claim that no matter how much testing is done it will never be enough to justify it. We need real results, from real events. I am advocating for the unban in order to get real data, its not our fault WotC decided to pre-ban the cards without data to back the decision, its their fault. I fail to see how that is attacking anyone or criticizing them. Please explain your reasoning.
3. Stating that anyone should shut up because they are "clearly wrong from the view of so many people(who are tired of this and do not speak)" is not the correct way to address an issue in here, its not a valid argument and it proves nothing. In fact it makes you look arrogant. This is the banlist thread, for the discussion of the banlist. You can't just resort to telling people to shut up because you ASSUME that they are clearly wrong and you also ASSUME that you have a silent majority backing you up, thats absurd and we might as well close the thread if you have all the answers. But... judging by many other posters who also advocate for these unbans I am... clearly NOT wrong from the view of so many other people (who are also tired of this and do not speak)... lol two can play this self validating game. Plus, you have been proven wrong many of times, lets remember the most recent, when people called you out when you were confident SFM is being played more than Tarmo in legacy. Clearly you were wrong, so clearly you can be wrong in many of your other arguments, so please, stop telling people to shut up because you assume they are simply wrong. Back up your statements with data, not with assumptions. You know why you can't prove me wrong in my argument? Because I don't go around wildly throwing 15 bullet point arguments per post based on assumptions. I don't make any assumptions about anything, I stick to solid real data, this is why I advocate for the unbans, to get real data with which to back up arguments. I don't bother making speculations that can easily be debated with more speculation.
4. There are many kinds of people in this game, I don't fit in any of the two you assume are the only ones.
-I have never claimed the format to be sick.
-I play Lantern Control ONLY, so none of the cards I am advocating in favor of unbanning fit my deck, so I am not looking to make my deck "super broken".
-I am skilled at this game, this is part of the reason I actually want these cards unbanned, for the format to become all it can be so that I can test my skill against the best of the best. I am not afraid of other decks becoming stronger. I don't want the format to be held back unnecessarily, I want the challenge of playing the best decks there could possibly be out there.
-I hate legacy, I play modern for a reason, because its not legacy and will never be. Unbanning SFM and some of the controversial pre-bans does not turn modern into legacy, you are delusional.
So you see, none of your assumptions apply to me or to many others, you need to add many different kinds of players to your narrow list.
5. "Small changes" is a relative term. You want some "small changes" with the unban of AV and SOTM and BBE, while other people want the "small change" of unbanning SFM and JTMS. The term "Small change" is relative, specially when these cards have never been modern legal, so how small a change it is is just mere speculation and to claim that your speculation is the correct one and that others are "clearly wrong" is just absurd.
6. It is beyond me how you cannot understand the simplicity in the argument that there has never been real data to backup the pre-bans, which renders any speculation for or against them, completely irrelevant. Furthermore, its depressing and frustrating dealing with people who see this argument as an attack or a critic to other members. But feel free to keep yelling at people how they should shut up because of how "clearly wrong" they are.
Really depends on the numbers you are talking. It would take a significant percentage or number to make Wotc realize there is something wrong. They know they cant please everyone. They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong. Its been that way since the inception of the format, yet attendance numbers are still very good. You would have to organize weeks of players boycotting the format before Wotc probably would do anything.
It is nice that you changed your stance from "the format is not regulated by the player base" to "Really depends on the numbers". Though you contradict yourself a bit when you say "The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions." which means that WotC doesn't take player base opinions in consideration when making decisions and then in the next post you say "They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong." which shows WotC does pay attention to the player base opinion... But while it is nice that you are open minded to change your mind... thats not the point we were addressing, is it? We weren't addressing who gets to make decisions in the game or how they make those decisions. We were talking about SFM and the irrelevancy of anything short of unbanning SFm and some of the more controversial pre-bans as a metric to asses their real power level in the format. Is there any way, short of unbanning, to assess their real power level in modern? No, there is not.
I didnt change anything. I explained how, why the player base doesnt regulate the format. It would take a large portion of the player base to boycott the format to make Wotc do something they feel was correct for the format. The player base doesnt have that kind of organization. Wotc would have to see a dramatic drop in numbers across all levels of Modern play.
Wotc does regulate the format. They have their finger on the pulse of the format, and in a larger aspect, the game in general. Some yearn for the days of late 90s early 2000s and think the game was better then. Others (like me) feel the game is much better now then it was 15 or so years ago. Like I have always said, find a format you like to play and play it. stop trying to make every format the same. Or just because you cant afford a format, dont try and ruin another format you can.
As for the power level of SFM, they can use data from other formats to understand what it would do to Modern and what would be needed to keep SFM in check and not to warp the format. When the person who is the head of the ban list for Modern thinks a card is/was a mistake to make, I doubt you are going to get him to change his mind on the card. I just wish they would ban the rest of the cards they feel were design mistakes. Some people just need to move on and understand you will probably never get to play a certain card in the format, at least not this weekend you wont.
Again, who regulates the format is completely irrelevant to the point I am addressing. Can we drop that line and stick to the actual subject?
As for assessing SFM's power level by looking at legacy... I don't even have to make an argument against this. Legacy is simply not modern, period. Doing that leaves us back at square 1, not having any real data.
Monastery Mentor can do stupid things in Miracles Countertop shell (you can kill an opponent fast with two tops in play + Mentor) and Miracles is one of the best decks in legacy right now.
Pretty much any fair green deck in legacy like RUG Delver, BUG Delver, Shardless BUG, Jund, Abzan (when someone has the galls to actually play it, I honestly don't think its a bad deck), etc.
The only fair green deck in legacy that doesn't run Goyf to my knowledge is Maverick, but that deck has its own reasons for doing so (ie, it has a Green Sun Zenith toolbox).
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that table has nothing to do with power level. Its a table that shows which cards are played more, regardless of its power level. The table is not saying that Sage, Mentor or Clique are more powerful than SFM, just that those cards are played more.
If Wotc feels linear decks need to be slowed, they can unban SotM.
If Wotc feels white needs a boost, They can print something powerful in the next few sets. The dont need to chance loosing SFM on the meta.
Your third issue is all subjective. Some want more power, others are fine with the power level as it is.
Except I am just repeating what Wotc has said about the subject. Aaron Foresyth said SFM, Jace and Gsz have a grave in Modern, if you wish to play those cards, play a format they are legal in.
One last thing, the power of a card is not measured in how much its played in a format. Just because the meta shifts and makes a card unfavorable, does not mean it is still not powerful. The meta is just not favorable to play it.
You can make a point without being condescending.
There is power in versatility which is why some cards are getting run over SFM in legacy. SFM being more powerful than 3 cards that are more played than it in a different format says exactly nothing about what will happen with it in this format.
Until other people start posting real test results, none of this matters. For every conjectured argument there is an equally valid counter argument. We simply don't know anything without real testing.
For all of you telling us to drop it, no. Clearly there is interest in the subject and if things were so cut and dry than this discussion wouldn't have carried on the way it has. In a ban thread, saying things like "well it's up to WOTC so who cares stop talking about it" doesn't make any sense. We're in this thread to discuss bans, so that's what we're going to do.
Ok, Bob was never, and has never been a terrible card. Bob fell in popularity due to the massive spike in Burn last year, GP Kobe if I remember right. Jund tried many things to replace him and this is when we saw a shift towards Junk. This in no way makes Bob a bad card, just poorly positioned. After the meta game adapted to Burn, Jund was able to slot Bob back in, and take their typically dominate place again. If instant speed grave hate, or Rest in Peace became a big player in the format, you wouldn't here Snapcaster being called terrible, it just wouldn't be well positioned. In the non burn match ups, Bob was still one of Junds best weapons in that format.
Goyf is powerful because he needs very little support, he is a stand alone card. The other 4 cards of the powerful two drop cycle all need to be built around. Snapcaster needs a fair amount of decent instants to flash back, Bob needs a low curve, Young Pyromancer needs fast mana and plenty of cantrips, and SFM needs two or three decent targets. These all have deck building constraints, but add massive power to a deck, while Goyf doesn't need a ton of support, but his ceiling is much lower. Of of the other four, SFM requires the least amount of work for the power given, and is highly splashable. This is why SFM is an issue. Bloom, Tron, Reanimator, Infect, Affinity, and most other scenarios people want to bring up aren't correct as these decks are whole crafted around that possibility. SFM does not need a whole deck built around it to get the turn three Batterskull, they need four SFM and one Batterskull. If you can't see why that's an issue, I don't know what to tell you.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
People posted the table because Gkourou said that SFM was played more than Tarmogoyf or Snap. That's it.
We can't have a discussion if people don't even know why they are arguing. If someone responds with something and people respond to something else entirely and put words in people's mouths this can't go anywhere.
Is anyone else actually testing SFM as well?
The biggest argument in favor of SFM is that it helps even out the linear / non-linear balance in the format - the totally dominance of linear is what got us on the SFM talk in the first place.
The solution to the problem is to have cards like Cryptic Command, but in white (I mean at least, in terms of power level) that require a heavy investment towards the color white, not a card that's easily splashed into most decks.
No. The people who are testing are either staying silent or being ignored. For instance, radio414 is a rockstar who posted some goldfish results for both Grishoalbrand and Amulet Bloom, both of which I'll be using to validate my own findings when I get around to goldfishing Amulet Bloom in preparation for a December/January banlist piece.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/617663-current-modern-banlist-discussion-9-28-2015-update?page=132#c3303
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/modern/617663-current-modern-banlist-discussion-9-28-2015-update?page=140#c3487
Basically no one (actually no one?) even cared about the posts and I haven't heard them mentioned since then. This is the kind of testing we need more of. You know what we don't need more of? The endless back-and-forth about theoretical and rhetorical examples, completely devoid of any real-world testing or even real-world context. As I said earlier, I'm testing AV+Twin so can't get around to this current ***** show until later, and I not very confident the test results will change much anyway. It's always easier to a) ignore test results, b) criticize them without thinking about how they could be improved or made helpful, and c) stay in theoryland than it is to actually try and make progress on these issues.
@kt: it's because testing like that doesn't really produce valid results for MANY reasons, as I'm sure you're well aware. Just as I feel anecdotal evidence should be rejected, so should non-widespread testing. When I was testing dnt variants I was recording across 250+ games and my collective data on variants spans years and hundreds of pages. For something as radical as an unbanning I would expect the same, but everyone seems to want to play 50 cockatrice games and call it fair.
So... even after thousands of test games, decades of collective data and thousands of pages more... it will still not matter at all. We need real data, from real events, with real thousands of players. Not data from 2 or 3 guy's thousands of test games in controlled settings. The only possible way to figure this out will always be the unbanning of the cards that started banned in modern. Anything other than that is mere non-productive theoretical speculation. We need to know the truth, and there is only one way to know it, we need to walk the path. Unban them.
We know some cards that started banned should stay there. Cards like Mental Misstep, Skullclamp and the artifact lands are universally agreed upon as completely broken and not even worth discussing. But cards like JTMS, SFM, SotM & AV, which have the general population pretty much divided as to whether they should be banned or not, should be unbanned because WotC needs to settle the arguments. It is their fault that there is even discussion on these cards because they decided to pre-ban them instead of banning them shortly after the format inception when the cards began putting up numbers to show why the banning was necessary. Had they done it this way Grave Troll and Bitterblossom probably never would have been banned to begin with, which is my biggest issue with the pre-bans. That some pre-bans have been unbanned and showed that WotC had it completely wrong on those cards. This opened the door to the possibility that WotC is wrong in some of the other pre-bans as well.
PS: If anyone else will only reply to this to correct me on what specific cards are agreed upon by the majority as broken and which are not or anything related. You missed the whole point. Don't bother typing it.
The problem with this thinking is, the format is not regulated by the player base. The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions. We as players have a choice of playing the format they have shaped in their vision, or not. As long as people are putting their butts in the seats for events, Wotc probably is not going to make drastic changes to the ban list. So, all the testing in the world by the player base isnt going to change anything. Its really a lesson in futility. Wasted hours of testing, when those hours could be better used improving current decks for different match ups. Maybe even discovering a new twist on a deck.
That... was the whole point. That testing and speculation won't change anything. This is why there is no other possible way to figure this out other than unbanning them, specially after we've seen cards unbanned and proven not to be broken as originally thought of. Testing and speculation will always come up short of the real deal and will be endlessly debated about. Real gameplay is the only definitive evidence for or against these cards. But by the looks of your post we should just shut up and let WotC do its thing and this thread should be locked up and forgotten as if it never existed. Every single post and discussion in here has been a complete waste of time and effort because in the end "WotC makes the decisions." and we matter not.
But the player base does regulate the format. You said it yourself, as long as they put their butts in the seats... WotC's decisions are based on these people's butts, if they keep sitting down WotC just milks the cow. But if they choose to stop putting their butts in the seats for X or Y reason, WotC will be forced to change something drastically, will they not? Then the player base does regulate everything. Money talks.
Burn has something like 12 ways to kill you before turn 4 because every Burn spell could be the one that finishes you off. This doesn't mean anything.
Not sure how that's relevant.
You can get killed on turn 1 in Legacy, but don't worry because every fair deck needs to mainboard Force of Will just to deal with that which forces every deck into Blue (which is our current issue today with fair decks).
You don't see the big dissonance here? You can't slam Modern for requiring specific cards to deal with the fast combo decks while that's true in Legacy as well! Heck it's even more true in Legacy because those fast decks are not only faster than the ones in Modern, but far more consistent at being able to win quickly as well, making having the all-encompassing answer cards even more critical.
Essentially, your argument is to take a bunch of corner case scenarios, act like they're far more common than they are, then make the completely nonsensical claim that fair decks "can't do anything" against them despite the fact they clearly can.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
It is nice that you changed your stance from "the format is not regulated by the player base" to "Really depends on the numbers". Though you contradict yourself a bit when you say "The player base can feel as it wishes, but in the end Wotc makes the decisions." which means that WotC doesn't take player base opinions in consideration when making decisions and then in the next post you say "They know from numerous articles on the internet there are disgruntled players that dont like Modern. You can go to any site that has a forum and see those who feel the ban list is wrong or is handled wrong." which shows WotC does pay attention to the player base opinion... But while it is nice that you are open minded to change your mind... thats not the point we were addressing, is it? We weren't addressing who gets to make decisions in the game or how they make those decisions. We were talking about SFM and the irrelevancy of anything short of unbanning SFm and some of the more controversial pre-bans as a metric to asses their real power level in the format. Is there any way, short of unbanning, to assess their real power level in modern? No, there is not.
While I get the frustration with not having given those cards a chance in the format, releasing them onto the format for a test period of sorts really throws the format into disarray, and even then people will want to revisit it and try again a few years or so down the line (look at the people who suggest BBE and DRS as examples) it would not end until they came off. I don't really have a desire to play in a format like that, so if they DO come off I want it to be for good. The thing is I don't think any card that pushes the power level of the format forward SHOULD come off. Unbans being used to address balance issues is questionable at best to me.
Coming from a Legacy background I have the experience, that SFM in fact helps W decks more than other decks light splashing W. The reason is that W based decks need to play many creatures that often become useless in "fair" fights, because they can't attack through Goyfs, Strix, True Name Nemesis, Pyromancer Tokens, Mentor Tokens, Deathrite Shamans etc. SFM is the card that breaks such stalements for those creature decks by providing Jitte and Swords, while also making agressive decks more managable by having a creature that has to be bolted and give a means of late game life gain. U based decks often don't need such a card, because they either need speed to close out games while sitting behind a counter wall or need creatures that can't be handled by most popular means to gain another angle of threads. SFM doesn't fit those bills.
So my conclusion is that powerlevel is always relative to the meta you are facing. If you want a card that can easily break stallmates, win the game on its own, help you against agressive decks, trade favourably against single target removal and have enough space to spare 6-7 slots, SFM is extremly strong. If you want speed to close out games, disruption against unfair decks, a card that is resilent against almost every played removal, cards that are good against every MU, there are better options in Legacy and Vintage (and in my opinion even Modern).
This is why creature based decks will take SFM over pretty much every other creature card and decks with a lot of removal and disruption currently favor cards like Goyf and SCM and decks which are disruption light (especially against spells) rather play Clique and/or Meidling Mage.
The reason why Brainstorm decks do not plsy Stoneforge is because they are trying to police the format and currently the things that a deck must deal with to even be consistently competitive are being sble to beat the counter/top with instsnt dpeed terminus and random fast combo decks. Abrupt decay is the clesnest answer yo a resolved counterbslance while brainstorm and force of will gives you a way to beat fast combo and be condistent. This means that fair midrange or aggro/control strategies are pigeonholed into sultai to compete. You also get deathrite and shardless agent which are powerhouses hrnce why the white for stoneforge and swords to plowshares is not worth it in legacy in those kind of strategies since anything with creatures must be able to deal with the counterbalance lock and large amount of removal from miracles while still being able to fight combo. If abrupt decay had white in its cost instead of black or green stoneforge would be in those midrange or aggro/vonttol decks.
I didnt change anything. I explained how, why the player base doesnt regulate the format. It would take a large portion of the player base to boycott the format to make Wotc do something they feel was correct for the format. The player base doesnt have that kind of organization. Wotc would have to see a dramatic drop in numbers across all levels of Modern play.
Wotc does regulate the format. They have their finger on the pulse of the format, and in a larger aspect, the game in general. Some yearn for the days of late 90s early 2000s and think the game was better then. Others (like me) feel the game is much better now then it was 15 or so years ago. Like I have always said, find a format you like to play and play it. stop trying to make every format the same. Or just because you cant afford a format, dont try and ruin another format you can.
As for the power level of SFM, they can use data from other formats to understand what it would do to Modern and what would be needed to keep SFM in check and not to warp the format. When the person who is the head of the ban list for Modern thinks a card is/was a mistake to make, I doubt you are going to get him to change his mind on the card. I just wish they would ban the rest of the cards they feel were design mistakes. Some people just need to move on and understand you will probably never get to play a certain card in the format, at least not this weekend you wont.
I touched on this a few pages back. People that play Legacy want Modern to be closer to Legacy so they try and use Legacy mentality to justify the safety of SFM in that format as a reason to unban it in Modern. Because we have one card it seems everyone keeps bringing up (K-command) doesnt mean that is enough policing to unban SFM.
LOL!!! This thread is really depressing.
1. Stop being so sensitive all the time, you act like a victim whenever an argument is in contrast with your way of thinking, which you assume to be correct at all times. It is obnoxious, please stop. If you can't cope with other's opinions don't bother participating in this thread please.
2. I am not attacking anyone, much less criticizing them, you are the one attacking and criticizing me buddy. I pointed out what I considered contradictions in Bocephus post and politely asked him to just focus on the point at hand rather than branch off into another subject like, who makes decisions in this game or how many people we need to organize to change the game. If you see that as an attack it is not my fault, I merely asked him to stay on subject which was that ktk proposed testing of SFM to get some kind of data as to its power level. Sheepz argued that testing SFM won't be productive enough to justify an unban. I agreed with that, and went further to claim that no matter how much testing is done it will never be enough to justify it. We need real results, from real events. I am advocating for the unban in order to get real data, its not our fault WotC decided to pre-ban the cards without data to back the decision, its their fault. I fail to see how that is attacking anyone or criticizing them. Please explain your reasoning.
3. Stating that anyone should shut up because they are "clearly wrong from the view of so many people(who are tired of this and do not speak)" is not the correct way to address an issue in here, its not a valid argument and it proves nothing. In fact it makes you look arrogant. This is the banlist thread, for the discussion of the banlist. You can't just resort to telling people to shut up because you ASSUME that they are clearly wrong and you also ASSUME that you have a silent majority backing you up, thats absurd and we might as well close the thread if you have all the answers. But... judging by many other posters who also advocate for these unbans I am... clearly NOT wrong from the view of so many other people (who are also tired of this and do not speak)... lol two can play this self validating game. Plus, you have been proven wrong many of times, lets remember the most recent, when people called you out when you were confident SFM is being played more than Tarmo in legacy. Clearly you were wrong, so clearly you can be wrong in many of your other arguments, so please, stop telling people to shut up because you assume they are simply wrong. Back up your statements with data, not with assumptions. You know why you can't prove me wrong in my argument? Because I don't go around wildly throwing 15 bullet point arguments per post based on assumptions. I don't make any assumptions about anything, I stick to solid real data, this is why I advocate for the unbans, to get real data with which to back up arguments. I don't bother making speculations that can easily be debated with more speculation.
4. There are many kinds of people in this game, I don't fit in any of the two you assume are the only ones.
-I have never claimed the format to be sick.
-I play Lantern Control ONLY, so none of the cards I am advocating in favor of unbanning fit my deck, so I am not looking to make my deck "super broken".
-I am skilled at this game, this is part of the reason I actually want these cards unbanned, for the format to become all it can be so that I can test my skill against the best of the best. I am not afraid of other decks becoming stronger. I don't want the format to be held back unnecessarily, I want the challenge of playing the best decks there could possibly be out there.
-I hate legacy, I play modern for a reason, because its not legacy and will never be. Unbanning SFM and some of the controversial pre-bans does not turn modern into legacy, you are delusional.
So you see, none of your assumptions apply to me or to many others, you need to add many different kinds of players to your narrow list.
5. "Small changes" is a relative term. You want some "small changes" with the unban of AV and SOTM and BBE, while other people want the "small change" of unbanning SFM and JTMS. The term "Small change" is relative, specially when these cards have never been modern legal, so how small a change it is is just mere speculation and to claim that your speculation is the correct one and that others are "clearly wrong" is just absurd.
6. It is beyond me how you cannot understand the simplicity in the argument that there has never been real data to backup the pre-bans, which renders any speculation for or against them, completely irrelevant. Furthermore, its depressing and frustrating dealing with people who see this argument as an attack or a critic to other members. But feel free to keep yelling at people how they should shut up because of how "clearly wrong" they are.
Again, who regulates the format is completely irrelevant to the point I am addressing. Can we drop that line and stick to the actual subject?
As for assessing SFM's power level by looking at legacy... I don't even have to make an argument against this. Legacy is simply not modern, period. Doing that leaves us back at square 1, not having any real data.