They just want Modern to be a true alternative to Legacy.
And I mean they really want Modern to be a true alternative to Legacy. Like any real similarity between them and they immediately step in.
Stoneforge Mystic, though, was a good ban for the time. Because of the recent success of CawBlade and Stoneblade most of the people of the format had defaulted to Stoneforge decks and the format was miserably homogenized.
Now, though? Delver is a solid alternative to Stoneblade and RG Tron would still beat Stoneforge decks, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. However, having TWO formats partly defined by Stoneforge Mystic and Delver of Secrets is bad, so I don't see it coming back unfortunately.
They just want Modern to be a true alternative to Legacy.
And I mean they really want Modern to be a true alternative to Legacy. Like any real similarity between them and they immediately step in.
Stoneforge Mystic, though, was a good ban for the time. Because of the recent success of CawBlade and Stoneblade most of the people of the format had defaulted to Stoneforge decks and the format was miserably homogenized.
Now, though? Delver is a solid alternative to Stoneblade and RG Tron would still beat Stoneforge decks, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. However, having TWO formats partly defined by Stoneforge Mystic and Delver of Secrets is bad, so I don't see it coming back unfortunately.
I am not advocating for anything to be unbanned or banned (for now)...you know how I feel about bannings.
AND
Had they just used different criteria for their basis for banning, I think the list would be better received.
we had an experience with zoo. wizards banned wild nacatl and zoo goes from tier 1 to almost zero (for reasons that i never understood, but this is what happened). and cranial plating is much more important for affinity than nacatl for zoo
Well, technically speaking, moving from tier 1 to tier 0 would actually mean the deck got better...
Anyways, I feel that plating gone would really hurt affinity. It gets so many random wins from that card. I'm not convinced that it would be lynched from competitive, but it certainly wouldn't win as much.
Thank you. That clears up some stuff for me, including why some people are so up in arms to begin with.
I thought Legacy was just a loose criteria, but they really looked at how the cards were performing in Legacy....that is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion.
I think they could have had this list better received had they used old extended and overextended as the baseline as opposed to Legacy. As I said earlier, Modern and Legacy are completely different. There are really busted cards allowed in Legacy that can't be reprinted or that they won't. Apples to Oranges comparison...
That is exactly the reason I have the idealized position that almost all of the cards that were initially banned should be unbanned so that Modern can decide if they are actually damaging to this unique format. That will never happen, but as I said a long time ago, Wizards will always get guff about the ban list because these cards never proved they needed to be banned in Modern. I have no doubt that many, if not almost all, of the original banned cards need to be banned, but the lack of Modern evidence will leave the format open to "what if" speculation that no one can objectively answer.
LOL, me too. I HATE playing around that card, but that is just my personal position. I may want it banned (along with Mindslaver), but I do not think it should be banned.
I cannot believe that people are actually considering the legalization of the artifact lands. This should only be done if Ravager, Plating, Disciple, and perhaps others that I am missing are put on the ban list. Even then you have cards like Galvanic Blast, Dispatch, and Puresteel Paladin that become incredible, not to mention Thoughtcast, and the default counter spell after turn one would become stoic rebuttal. Wizards had the option once before, about nine years ago, to either ban the artifact lands or the cards that abused them- they chose to ban the enablers and that has been their position since (see Green Sun's Zenith). I did not agree at the time, but I have learned a bit since then, and the Arti. Lands the few cards that I feel were justified on the initial ban list.
I have never seen a deck that isn't dredge use Bridge from Below. It is just too unreliable without a sorcery that allows you to sacrifice 3 creatures for free and reanimate a dude. Plus it sucks if you draw it.
That said, Vengevine Zombies would be an awesome modern deck, and Golgari Grave Troll would help to make it more playable, but it wouldn't break it.
I see you like LoK, good, good!
My bet is Amon is semi-mechanical because of some accident or fight and had to be reconstructed like freezer or darth vader.
Are SFM and Delver comparable in power level? I think not.
I see you like LoK, good, good!
My bet is Amon is semi-mechanical because of some accident or fight and had to be reconstructed like freezer or darth vader.
Yo this Amon thing is driving me crazy who it could be. I love the mystery aspect of this show as compared to the first series.
Please do not make off-topic posts while not contributing anything to the thread. Warning Issued.
-Tom
For example, Air Elemental is a modern-legal card, because it was printed in at least one set 8th edition or after. In AE's case, it was printed in 8th edition, 9th edition, 10th edition, and m10. It was also printed in Duel Decks, Jace vs. Chandra, but that doesn't count towards this point; If it had only been printed in the Duel Decks set but not a real, official, MtG edition that was 8th edition or after, it wouldn't be legal.
You may also use other versions of that card, so long as that card is legal. You are allowed to use the Air Elemental card from the duel decks, and you are allowed to use the Air Elemental card from beta, as well as portal second age, sixth edition, etc.
However, you may not use a card, even if it is legal for modern, if it was from a certain set that is specifically not tournament legal. This means you cannot use an Air Elemental from Collector's Edition.
For more examples, the following facts are true:
- Sol Ring is not legal, even though it was printed after 8th Edition (it was printed in Commander). This is because it wasn't in an actual set.
- If you have Birds of Paradise, you cannot play the collector's edition version of it, as collector's edition isn't tournament legal. Other versions such as Ravnica edition are legal.
- You may use the Stronghold edition of Mana Leak, because stronghold is a tournament legal set, and mana leak is a legal card (it was printed in M12, among other things)
Thanks all. I thought so but someone told me my old border cards weren't allowed, that I would get DQ'ed, and only modern framed cards are allowed; "thats why it's called MODERN." in a condescending tone... little punk
Thanks all. I thought so but someone told me my old border cards weren't allowed, that I would get DQ'ed, and only modern framed cards are allowed; "thats why it's called MODERN." in a condescending tone... little punk
Hehe, yeah he was very incorrect. Modern is similar to standard in respects to using older cards as long as they are legal.
I bet you'd like to see him get DQ'd for his modern framed sol rings in his deck
plenty of lists, even non-budget don't run goyf. Your three drops are better in bant, and typically happen on T2; the only 2cc spells run in bant are usually hate bears or utility; like Pridemage. It's preference. Goyf isn't particularly amazing in Geist Bant.
Stoneforge Mystic > Tarmogoyf, imo. Tarmogoyf doesn't define an entire archetype that has been a powerful presence since Batterskull's printed in both Standard and Legacy. Tarmogoyf was the stand alone best creature to date when people first realized how good he was (Anyone remember the Standard Tarmorack and Tarmageddon decks?) but this is a different time and magic is different now. If I had to make a decision between a SFM deck and a deck using Goyf I would always take the SFM deck first.
Also, Delver is not better than Goyf. Not imo, anyway. Delver is certainly the best one drop creature printed so far though. I think it's only fair to compare him to other one drops like Isamaru and Goblin Guide.
Regardless, both are losing power and seeing less play in Legacy. Goyf is amazing in Modern, though. Probably better than SFM would be if she came back at full power. Can't say for sure, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
Stoneforge Mystic > Tarmogoyf, imo. Tarmogoyf doesn't define an entire archetype that has been a powerful presence since Batterskull's printed in both Standard and Legacy. Tarmogoyf was the stand alone best creature to date when people first realized how good he was (Anyone remember the Standard Tarmorack and Tarmageddon decks?) but this is a different time and magic is different now. If I had to make a decision between a SFM deck and a deck using Goyf I would always take the SFM deck first.
Also, Delver is not better than Goyf. Not imo, anyway. Delver is certainly the best one drop creature printed so far though. I think it's only fair to compare him to other one drops like Isamaru and Goblin Guide.
Regardless, both are losing power and seeing less play in Legacy. Goyf is amazing in Modern, though. Probably better than SFM would be if she came back at full power. Can't say for sure, though.
Throughout the modern forum's history, people have argued and argued about who's better than who when it comes to two drops. Confidant and snapcaster get thrown in the mix too. I'd really not like to start that up again, especially when no one can really prove their points.
I'd say none of them are particularly "better" than any of the others. They are usually used in different decks for different purposes. Some may be more powerful in certain formats than others, and some may be really popular for a time and then rotate out of style. But in the end, they are all good, and none of them are strictly better than another one.
-----------------------------------
Comparisons aside, I personally feel SFM could be unbanned. Thoughts? I know many people very much disagree with this, but when she was legal, she felt fine, at least in my opinion.
I think she would def develop her decks as any powerful creature would..but I think there are already a ton of must answer creatures and so I build my decks accordingly. I think she is terrifically powerful but she doesn't do crap against spell snare and they can't cheat her big ugly friend into play against bolt..
Throughout the modern forum's history, people have argued and argued about who's better than who when it comes to two drops. Confidant and snapcaster get thrown in the mix too. I'd really not like to start that up again, especially when no one can really prove their points.
I'd say none of them are particularly "better" than any of the others. They are usually used in different decks for different purposes. Some may be more powerful in certain formats than others, and some may be really popular for a time and then rotate out of style. But in the end, they are all good, and none of them are strictly better than another one.
-----------------------------------
Comparisons aside, I personally feel SFM could be unbanned. Thoughts? I know many people very much disagree with this, but when she was legal, she felt fine, at least in my opinion.
I think SFM would be fine; the T3 Batterskull would suck, but it doesn't suck anymore than the Affinity semi-nut draw into a plating. And you can use an artifact or creature removal spell to stop it from happening; whereas with plating you need an artifact destruction spell, and only that. I understand that they're both different decks doing different things, but, "Powerful must deal with artifact by T3" calls for the same answer; and in this case SFM allows you to answer it two ways.
Comparisons aside, I personally feel SFM could be unbanned. Thoughts? I know many people very much disagree with this, but when she was legal, she felt fine, at least in my opinion.
No thank you. We have enough decks that you feel you have lost turn 2 if you are not holding or draw into an answer when your opponent plays something stupidly powerful. If anything we need less power in the format, not more.
I think SFM would be fine; the T3 Batterskull would suck, but it doesn't suck anymore than the Affinity semi-nut draw into a plating. And you can use an artifact or creature removal spell to stop it from happening; whereas with plating you need an artifact destruction spell, and only that. I understand that they're both different decks doing different things, but, "Powerful must deal with artifact by T3" calls for the same answer; and in this case SFM allows you to answer it two ways.
I feel like the difference here is that an affinity nut draw only happens once in a while, and there are still many answers--there are lots of cheap spells that kill the plating/etc. And once you kill the plating, or if they don't hit their nut draw, affinity is a relatively weak deck, as the entire deck is full of cards that present very little threat outside this nut draw (Memnite, Blinkmoth Nexus, Ornithopter, etc).
Whereas, SFM is simply a 4-of in a deck filled with a ton of other powerful answers. Even if you manage to beat the SFM/artifact, they have the entire rest of their hand full of other cards you must answer.
Basically, it seems unfair to compare the power of a card that needs an entire deck of sub-par cards built around it (Plating) to a card that can easily be dropped into a large number of already-powerful decks (SFM).
As long as it doesn't actually win that early and doesn't warp the format, "it's powerful" is absolutely no reason to ban something or keep something banned.
And I disagree with your views about the card and the ban list. I dont want uber powerful things in Modern. I want fair and balanced.
And I disagree with your views about the card and the ban list. I dont want uber powerful things in Modern. I want fair and balanced.
I don't think it matters what either of you want. What matters is what is and what isn't degenerate in the format. SFM would hardly be degenerate.
And by your 'wants' wouldn't several other cards warrant bans in Modern? I mean come on man, Urzatron, Plating, everything but slow midrange/control decks?
I don't think it matters what either of you want. What matters is what is and what isn't degenerate in the format. SFM would hardly be degenerate.
And by your 'wants' wouldn't several other cards warrant bans in Modern? I mean come on man, Urzatron, Plating, everything but slow midrange/control decks?
I have already stated I would like to see plating and ravager banned and the arty lands unbanned to see how things play out. I dont think it would 'kill' affinity, but would lead to many new deck builds for the type.
I dont want wins prior to the turn 4 rule. I dont want to have the feeling I have lost from a turn 2 or turn 3 play if I dont have the answer in my hand or I dont draw it. You have maybe 1 turn to answer SFM, MAYBE. If your opponent untaps twice with her on board, you might as well scoop and move on the the next game. That type of power isnt needed in the format.
And banning brokenskull and unbanning SFM will just bump up the swords.
SFM should just stay banned.
(again, I own playesets of her, its not about money or availability, its about power level. )
I dont want to have the feeling I have lost from a turn 2 or turn 3 play if I dont have the answer in my hand or I dont draw it. You have maybe 1 turn to answer SFM, MAYBE.
Isn't that a similar case for dark confidant and (sometimes) tarmogoyf?
In any case, it's widely accepted that she is a very good card as you say. But as Torm said, when she wasn't banned she wasn't necessarily degenerate. The format was still functioning fine. If it wasn't I could see her being/staying banned, but it was.
I have already stated I would like to see plating and ravager banned and the arty lands unbanned to see how things play out. I dont think it would 'kill' affinity, but would lead to many new deck builds for the type.
I dont want wins prior to the turn 4 rule. I dont want to have the feeling I have lost from a turn 2 or turn 3 play if I dont have the answer in my hand or I dont draw it. You have maybe 1 turn to answer SFM, MAYBE. If your opponent untaps twice with her on board, you might as well scoop and move on the the next game. That type of power isnt needed in the format.
And banning brokenskull and unbanning SFM will just bump up the swords.
SFM should just stay banned.
(again, I own playesets of her, its not about money or availability, its about power level. )
Isn't that how every game plays out? Bad hand = loss? No answers for threats = loss?
I understand staring down a T3 Batterskull and a T3 Wooly Thoctar feels different, but if you don't have a way to deal with either they're both going to kill you in 4 to 5 turns. Same thing could be said for Bob, or Karn PW'er. The ebb and flow of "i'm losing" to "i'm winning" is what this game is about, now, i think. Board-states seem more swingy in Standard and Modern; things are more Tempo based and aren't as CA based; there's hardly no grinding an opponent down, anymore. Even the 'grindy' / rockish deck in Modern, Assault Loam, generally let's you stay at a decent life total before it goes off and burns you for 15 in a turn.
But, i suppose being someone who prefers to out-tempo opponents as opposed to grinding out CA and incremental advantage, i don't mind swingy plays like this, (especially in the early points in the game); I understand where you're coming from; no one should really like staring down a ridiculous board position when they're laying down their 3rd land, but, most of the competitive decks in Modern do this.
Here's my opinion on SFM (not that anybody cares):
SFM really isn't all that great in a vacuum, but not a lot of cards are, SCM and Bob included (not goyf, however, despite its supposed green 2 cmc creature in the cycle of which we speak). Similar to delver, you have to build a deck around it to make it playable, which is what I like about SFM. However, we all know what SFM is capable of doing with batterskull after viewing what it did to standard. This isn't standard we're talking about though. The modern format is much more capable of handling with SFM than the standard format at the time. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can always rely on our great removal to get SFM's all the time, because we won't always have a path or a bolt in our hand, but SFM isn't quite as threatening by itself as a goyf, and it certainly doesn't give a player as much advantage as bob and snapcaster mage would. What I think it comes down to is how good are players at playing against SFM?
In legacy, SFM is all over the place being relatively cheap and easy to use in just about any aggro deck. Unlike in modern SFM has access to Jitte as well (which is easily way too powerful for modern, hands down) which makes SFM a lot more relevant. In modern, if you fetch a sword or a batterskull, and SFM gets removed, they're stuck with that in their hand, and they have to hard cast it, making it a lot slower. If it goes unanswered, then yeah, you could be having issues with getting batterskulled to death, but you also run into a lot of issues with other 2 drop creatures being left unchecked, especially the other cards in the cycle, which I already mentioned.
I will admit, I'm sick of seeing it in legacy, because with jitte and mom it's far more degenerate, but I'd be willing to let it come back into modern to see if it's more balanced than it is in legacy, or when it was in standard. I really think that without jitte or mom it's not as big of an issue as wizards makes it out to be, but we can't really know until we give it a try. I think the same goes for a few other cards banned in modern right now.
And as always: I think valakut and nacatl should be allowed back.
And I mean they really want Modern to be a true alternative to Legacy. Like any real similarity between them and they immediately step in.
Stoneforge Mystic, though, was a good ban for the time. Because of the recent success of CawBlade and Stoneblade most of the people of the format had defaulted to Stoneforge decks and the format was miserably homogenized.
Now, though? Delver is a solid alternative to Stoneblade and RG Tron would still beat Stoneforge decks, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. However, having TWO formats partly defined by Stoneforge Mystic and Delver of Secrets is bad, so I don't see it coming back unfortunately.
I am not advocating for anything to be unbanned or banned (for now)...you know how I feel about bannings.
AND
Had they just used different criteria for their basis for banning, I think the list would be better received.
Well, technically speaking, moving from tier 1 to tier 0 would actually mean the deck got better...
Anyways, I feel that plating gone would really hurt affinity. It gets so many random wins from that card. I'm not convinced that it would be lynched from competitive, but it certainly wouldn't win as much.
LOL, me too. I HATE playing around that card, but that is just my personal position. I may want it banned (along with Mindslaver), but I do not think it should be banned.
I cannot believe that people are actually considering the legalization of the artifact lands. This should only be done if Ravager, Plating, Disciple, and perhaps others that I am missing are put on the ban list. Even then you have cards like Galvanic Blast, Dispatch, and Puresteel Paladin that become incredible, not to mention Thoughtcast, and the default counter spell after turn one would become stoic rebuttal. Wizards had the option once before, about nine years ago, to either ban the artifact lands or the cards that abused them- they chose to ban the enablers and that has been their position since (see Green Sun's Zenith). I did not agree at the time, but I have learned a bit since then, and the Arti. Lands the few cards that I feel were justified on the initial ban list.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I see you like LoK, good, good!
My bet is Amon is semi-mechanical because of some accident or fight and had to be reconstructed like freezer or darth vader.
Can I use cards that are modern legal with old borders?
Credit to DolZero for this awesome sig!
Yo this Amon thing is driving me crazy who it could be. I love the mystery aspect of this show as compared to the first series.
Please do not make off-topic posts while not contributing anything to the thread. Warning Issued.
-Tom
For example, Air Elemental is a modern-legal card, because it was printed in at least one set 8th edition or after. In AE's case, it was printed in 8th edition, 9th edition, 10th edition, and m10. It was also printed in Duel Decks, Jace vs. Chandra, but that doesn't count towards this point; If it had only been printed in the Duel Decks set but not a real, official, MtG edition that was 8th edition or after, it wouldn't be legal.
You may also use other versions of that card, so long as that card is legal. You are allowed to use the Air Elemental card from the duel decks, and you are allowed to use the Air Elemental card from beta, as well as portal second age, sixth edition, etc.
However, you may not use a card, even if it is legal for modern, if it was from a certain set that is specifically not tournament legal. This means you cannot use an Air Elemental from Collector's Edition.
For more examples, the following facts are true:
- Sol Ring is not legal, even though it was printed after 8th Edition (it was printed in Commander). This is because it wasn't in an actual set.
- If you have Birds of Paradise, you cannot play the collector's edition version of it, as collector's edition isn't tournament legal. Other versions such as Ravnica edition are legal.
- You may use the Stronghold edition of Mana Leak, because stronghold is a tournament legal set, and mana leak is a legal card (it was printed in M12, among other things)
Hope that helps,
Tom
Hehe, yeah he was very incorrect. Modern is similar to standard in respects to using older cards as long as they are legal.
I bet you'd like to see him get DQ'd for his modern framed sol rings in his deck
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=391039
plenty of lists, even non-budget don't run goyf. Your three drops are better in bant, and typically happen on T2; the only 2cc spells run in bant are usually hate bears or utility; like Pridemage. It's preference. Goyf isn't particularly amazing in Geist Bant.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
Also, Delver is not better than Goyf. Not imo, anyway. Delver is certainly the best one drop creature printed so far though. I think it's only fair to compare him to other one drops like Isamaru and Goblin Guide.
Regardless, both are losing power and seeing less play in Legacy. Goyf is amazing in Modern, though. Probably better than SFM would be if she came back at full power. Can't say for sure, though.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Throughout the modern forum's history, people have argued and argued about who's better than who when it comes to two drops. Confidant and snapcaster get thrown in the mix too. I'd really not like to start that up again, especially when no one can really prove their points.
I'd say none of them are particularly "better" than any of the others. They are usually used in different decks for different purposes. Some may be more powerful in certain formats than others, and some may be really popular for a time and then rotate out of style. But in the end, they are all good, and none of them are strictly better than another one.
-----------------------------------
Comparisons aside, I personally feel SFM could be unbanned. Thoughts? I know many people very much disagree with this, but when she was legal, she felt fine, at least in my opinion.
I think SFM would be fine; the T3 Batterskull would suck, but it doesn't suck anymore than the Affinity semi-nut draw into a plating. And you can use an artifact or creature removal spell to stop it from happening; whereas with plating you need an artifact destruction spell, and only that. I understand that they're both different decks doing different things, but, "Powerful must deal with artifact by T3" calls for the same answer; and in this case SFM allows you to answer it two ways.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
No thank you. We have enough decks that you feel you have lost turn 2 if you are not holding or draw into an answer when your opponent plays something stupidly powerful. If anything we need less power in the format, not more.
I feel like the difference here is that an affinity nut draw only happens once in a while, and there are still many answers--there are lots of cheap spells that kill the plating/etc. And once you kill the plating, or if they don't hit their nut draw, affinity is a relatively weak deck, as the entire deck is full of cards that present very little threat outside this nut draw (Memnite, Blinkmoth Nexus, Ornithopter, etc).
Whereas, SFM is simply a 4-of in a deck filled with a ton of other powerful answers. Even if you manage to beat the SFM/artifact, they have the entire rest of their hand full of other cards you must answer.
Basically, it seems unfair to compare the power of a card that needs an entire deck of sub-par cards built around it (Plating) to a card that can easily be dropped into a large number of already-powerful decks (SFM).
And I disagree with your views about the card and the ban list. I dont want uber powerful things in Modern. I want fair and balanced.
I don't think it matters what either of you want. What matters is what is and what isn't degenerate in the format. SFM would hardly be degenerate.
And by your 'wants' wouldn't several other cards warrant bans in Modern? I mean come on man, Urzatron, Plating, everything but slow midrange/control decks?
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
I have already stated I would like to see plating and ravager banned and the arty lands unbanned to see how things play out. I dont think it would 'kill' affinity, but would lead to many new deck builds for the type.
I dont want wins prior to the turn 4 rule. I dont want to have the feeling I have lost from a turn 2 or turn 3 play if I dont have the answer in my hand or I dont draw it. You have maybe 1 turn to answer SFM, MAYBE. If your opponent untaps twice with her on board, you might as well scoop and move on the the next game. That type of power isnt needed in the format.
And banning brokenskull and unbanning SFM will just bump up the swords.
SFM should just stay banned.
(again, I own playesets of her, its not about money or availability, its about power level. )
Isn't that a similar case for dark confidant and (sometimes) tarmogoyf?
In any case, it's widely accepted that she is a very good card as you say. But as Torm said, when she wasn't banned she wasn't necessarily degenerate. The format was still functioning fine. If it wasn't I could see her being/staying banned, but it was.
Isn't that how every game plays out? Bad hand = loss? No answers for threats = loss?
I understand staring down a T3 Batterskull and a T3 Wooly Thoctar feels different, but if you don't have a way to deal with either they're both going to kill you in 4 to 5 turns. Same thing could be said for Bob, or Karn PW'er. The ebb and flow of "i'm losing" to "i'm winning" is what this game is about, now, i think. Board-states seem more swingy in Standard and Modern; things are more Tempo based and aren't as CA based; there's hardly no grinding an opponent down, anymore. Even the 'grindy' / rockish deck in Modern, Assault Loam, generally let's you stay at a decent life total before it goes off and burns you for 15 in a turn.
But, i suppose being someone who prefers to out-tempo opponents as opposed to grinding out CA and incremental advantage, i don't mind swingy plays like this, (especially in the early points in the game); I understand where you're coming from; no one should really like staring down a ridiculous board position when they're laying down their 3rd land, but, most of the competitive decks in Modern do this.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
SFM really isn't all that great in a vacuum, but not a lot of cards are, SCM and Bob included (not goyf, however, despite its supposed green 2 cmc creature in the cycle of which we speak). Similar to delver, you have to build a deck around it to make it playable, which is what I like about SFM. However, we all know what SFM is capable of doing with batterskull after viewing what it did to standard. This isn't standard we're talking about though. The modern format is much more capable of handling with SFM than the standard format at the time. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can always rely on our great removal to get SFM's all the time, because we won't always have a path or a bolt in our hand, but SFM isn't quite as threatening by itself as a goyf, and it certainly doesn't give a player as much advantage as bob and snapcaster mage would. What I think it comes down to is how good are players at playing against SFM?
In legacy, SFM is all over the place being relatively cheap and easy to use in just about any aggro deck. Unlike in modern SFM has access to Jitte as well (which is easily way too powerful for modern, hands down) which makes SFM a lot more relevant. In modern, if you fetch a sword or a batterskull, and SFM gets removed, they're stuck with that in their hand, and they have to hard cast it, making it a lot slower. If it goes unanswered, then yeah, you could be having issues with getting batterskulled to death, but you also run into a lot of issues with other 2 drop creatures being left unchecked, especially the other cards in the cycle, which I already mentioned.
I will admit, I'm sick of seeing it in legacy, because with jitte and mom it's far more degenerate, but I'd be willing to let it come back into modern to see if it's more balanced than it is in legacy, or when it was in standard. I really think that without jitte or mom it's not as big of an issue as wizards makes it out to be, but we can't really know until we give it a try. I think the same goes for a few other cards banned in modern right now.
And as always: I think valakut and nacatl should be allowed back.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge