God, I can not believe we are in a thread that's gone from SFM is broken to SFM is mediocre or at least perfectly fine/safe to unban.
SFM is an extremely good creature and WOTC has repeatedly said that the power level they desire for the format does not allow a creature to both search a 'X' card and cheat it around counterspells for the same converted mana cost into play.
I know there are a lot of people wanting SFM to be unbanned because they have a personal agenda(want to play a broken deck with which they will have the potential to have a hideous number of win rate or just fits their wallets) but WOTC just knows better and come monday we will all will be @ out normal "SFM is a broken card".
exactly my point. "SFM is a broken card" you realise if the situation were reversed and a card like Snapcaster was on the banlist it would be just as easy to demigogue. "It is ALWAYS a 2 for one" to stop the value you have to counterspell it "removal does nothing" "the damage is done on cast"
in this example you could even say that SFM is MORE fair because it is a squire (1/2) and snappy is a piker(2/1) so the body is even more relevant than SFM.
Now i am being facetious i do not think snapcaster should be banned, but at this point all the detractors are saying is the same broken record. "SFM is broken" In this case all the cards mentioned help every color other than white this is the epitome of my previous statement that people that play rock do not want paper to be any stronger even tho it is "INCREDIBLY" weak right now.
Snapcaster Mage does not even come close to SFM, since you MUST PAY the cost for a Cryptic Command flashback per say. 1U + 1UUU.
So, we just would realise that and it would be totally different. If SFM would cause Batterskull to come into play with its CMC, ( 5 ) and let it resolve around Counterspells it would be ok.
If SFM would only search for something, it would be ok.
If SFM would only cheat into play for 1W an equipment and it required you to have it into hand, it would be also OK.
Surely you jest? "snapcaster mage does not even come close to SFM"
You realise SFM lets you find items that are unplayable in the current modern format and snapcaster lets you play the most powerful of all effects in modern a second time
edit: again for clarity sake i AM NOT calling for a snap ban only drawing the obvious comparison between the 2 cards, and considering one is perfectly fine for the format i see no reason to believe that the other would not also be fine for the format.
God, I can not believe we are in a thread that's gone from SFM is broken to SFM is mediocre or at least perfectly fine/safe to unban.
SFM is an extremely good creature and WOTC has repeatedly said that the power level they desire for the format does not allow a creature to both search a 'X' card and cheat it around counterspells for the same converted mana cost into play.
I know there are a lot of people wanting SFM to be unbanned because they have a personal agenda(want to play a broken deck with which they will have the potential to have a hideous number of win rate or just fits their wallets) but WOTC just knows better and come monday we will all will be @ out normal "SFM is a broken card".
exactly my point. "SFM is a broken card" you realise if the situation were reversed and a card like Snapcaster was on the banlist it would be just as easy to demigogue. "It is ALWAYS a 2 for one" to stop the value you have to counterspell it "removal does nothing" "the damage is done on cast"
in this example you could even say that SFM is MORE fair because it is a squire (1/2) and snappy is a piker(2/1) so the body is even more relevant than SFM.
Now i am being facetious i do not think snapcaster should be banned, but at this point all the detractors are saying is the same broken record. "SFM is broken" In this case all the cards mentioned help every color other than white this is the epitome of my previous statement that people that play rock do not want paper to be any stronger even tho it is "INCREDIBLY" weak right now.
Snapcaster Mage does not even come close to SFM, since you MUST PAY the cost for a Cryptic Command flashback per say. 1U + 1UUU.
So, we just would realise that and it would be totally different. If SFM would cause Batterskull to come into play with its CMC, ( 5 ) and let it resolve around Counterspells it would be ok.
If SFM would only search for something, it would be ok.
If SFM would only cheat into play for 1W an equipment and it required you to have it into hand, it would be also OK.
Except that SFM has to be alive in order to cheat something in. As long as Snapcaster resolves, you can cast that spell whether he lives or not. And while not paying the full cost with SFM, she still requires 2 mana and a full turn of waiting and tapping itself in order to use the ability. Both have power and both have drawbacks.
What you said doesn't change the fact that SFM is too strong for Modern.
Keep hearing this from some users, but can't find evidence for it.
Although possible, it's very hard to win a game through turn 3 Batterskull for most fair decks. I even lost games because of turn 5 Batterskull because I didn't have immediate answer to it and turn 3 Batterskull doesn't make it any easier.
Not true. It's not very hard for most fair decks. In fact it's pretty easy for most fair decks. Both aggro and midrange/control decks can prevent that from happening quite easily by discarding/countering/destroying that Mystic. Again, this is no legacy. You land that Mystic on turn 2, it will almost automatically eat a removal and die right away. So all it did was tutoring a Batterskull that's sitting in your hand.
But let's assume your opponent allows Stoneforge to stay (won't happen very often), and you do put into play a turn 3 Batterskull. There are still plenty of ways to deal with it. Jund can destroy the Batterskull, or just destroy the token, or just put a 4/5 Tarmogoyf or a Tasigur into play and see what you do with your 4/4. But in fact, Jund will simply destroy the Mystic in the first place. Aggro decks will bolt/path Mystic in most cases. If they don't, they can still destroy the Germ, outclass it with Reliquaries, Tarmos, Loxodon Smiters, Voice tokens, sacrifice that Qasali Pridemage and destroy the Batterskull itself (Naya Company), fly over it with a swarm of fliers (Affinity), power through it via Ezuri (Elves) or with lords (Merfolks)etc. Post board all these decks will bring in additional artifact hate to deal with Batterskull.
Grixis Control, Grixis Delver or UW Control have about a billion way to answer that play as well.
So, no. Fair decks in Modern don't succumb to a turn 3 Batterskull, and anyway, can easily prevent that from happening.
Oh and you don't need "immediate answers" to a Batterskull. If you're Jund for example, you can easily recover from a couple Batterskull swings by landing a bigger guy or drawing some removals, especially Kolaghan, or Liliana herself.
This sure is a lot of words to say "I don't play Legacy and I have no idea how this card works". Tarmogoyf does not outclass Batterskull. Loxodon Smiter sure as hell doesn't. How do you read both of those cards and conclude that Smiter is, in any way, a viable solution to this card?The card is extremely strong in fair matchups because dealing with Mystic drags out the game even if you remove it and you can always play the equipment cards later, both of which are excellent when you're in topdeck mode. Batterskull is not particularly vulnerable to most forms of removal. You have completely neglected this card text:
3: Return Batterskull to its owner's hand.
Basically, you just scanned this text and assumed it was irrelevant, because it's not a hard tangible number. What this means is that if you draw your removal when they have three open, it's useless. If the game goes long (and these fair decks you describe intend for it to), you cannot sacrifice a Pridemage or whatever artifact removal spell you have to get rid of it in most cases. You can't just say "oh, I'll just remove it on turn three" because that's not how variance in an actual game of Magic works. You don't always have artifact removal and a clock on turn 3.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
What you said doesn't change the fact that SFM is too strong for Modern.
Keep hearing this from some users, but can't find evidence for it.
Although possible, it's very hard to win a game through turn 3 Batterskull for most fair decks. I even lost games because of turn 5 Batterskull because I didn't have immediate answer to it and turn 3 Batterskull doesn't make it any easier.
Not true. It's not very hard for most fair decks. In fact it's pretty easy for most fair decks. Both aggro and midrange/control decks can prevent that from happening quite easily by discarding/countering/destroying that Mystic. Again, this is no legacy. You land that Mystic on turn 2, it will almost automatically eat a removal and die right away. So all it did was tutoring a Batterskull that's sitting in your hand.
But let's assume your opponent allows Stoneforge to stay (won't happen very often), and you do put into play a turn 3 Batterskull. There are still plenty of ways to deal with it. Jund can destroy the Batterskull, or just destroy the token, or just put a 4/5 Tarmogoyf or a Tasigur into play and see what you do with your 4/4. But in fact, Jund will simply destroy the Mystic in the first place. Aggro decks will bolt/path Mystic in most cases. If they don't, they can still destroy the Germ, outclass it with Reliquaries, Tarmos, Loxodon Smiters, Voice tokens, sacrifice that Qasali Pridemage and destroy the Batterskull itself (Naya Company), fly over it with a swarm of fliers (Affinity), power through it via Ezuri (Elves) or with lords (Merfolks)etc. Post board all these decks will bring in additional artifact hate to deal with Batterskull.
Grixis Control, Grixis Delver or UW Control have about a billion way to answer that play as well.
So, no. Fair decks in Modern don't succumb to a turn 3 Batterskull, and anyway, can easily prevent that from happening.
Oh and you don't need "immediate answers" to a Batterskull. If you're Jund for example, you can easily recover from a couple Batterskull swings by landing a bigger guy or drawing some removals, especially Kolaghan, or Liliana herself.
This sure is a lot of words to say "I don't play Legacy and I have no idea how this card works". Tarmogoyf does not outclass Batterskull. Loxodon Smiter sure as hell doesn't. How do you read both of those cards and conclude that Smiter is, in any way, a viable solution to this card?The card is extremely strong in fair matchups because dealing with Mystic drags out the game even if you remove it and you can always play the equipment cards later, both of which are excellent when you're in topdeck mode. Batterskull is not particularly vulnerable to most forms of removal. You have completely neglected this card text:
3: Return Batterskull to its owner's hand.
Basically, you just scanned this text and assumed it was irrelevant, because it's not a hard tangible number. What this means is that if you draw your removal when they have three open, it's useless. If the game goes long (and these fair decks you describe intend for it to), you cannot sacrifice a Pridemage or whatever artifact removal spell you have to get rid of it in most cases. You can't just say "oh, I'll just remove it on turn three" because that's not how variance in an actual game of Magic works. You don't always have artifact removal and a clock on turn 3.
Alot of people have been throwing around the "I don't play legacy and have no idea how the card works claims" without actually knowing how the card works...
Battleskull (even in legacy) is actually the weakest thing your opponent can fetch with SFM. If your opponent plays their first SFM... and they grab a battleskull... you are relieved. The only reason why you'd grab battleskull first is if there is a pithing needle or revoker on the board naming Jitte...
Stop trying to say "in legacy" like it means something. It's 100% irrelevant to this discussion. SFM strength in legacy has NOTHING to do with battleskull and everything to do with Jitte.
End of discussion.
If SFM is deemed too powerful for modern it will be because a turn 4 swords + equip is too powerful. Not because of battlleskull. If anything battle-skull would be an argument FOR stoneforge because without it that card will never see play ever again in modern.
EDIT: I also want to point out... a turn 4 swords and equip is within Wizard's self-proclaimed turn 4 rule.
What you said doesn't change the fact that SFM is too strong for Modern.
Keep hearing this from some users, but can't find evidence for it.
Although possible, it's very hard to win a game through turn 3 Batterskull for most fair decks. I even lost games because of turn 5 Batterskull because I didn't have immediate answer to it and turn 3 Batterskull doesn't make it any easier.
Not true. It's not very hard for most fair decks. In fact it's pretty easy for most fair decks. Both aggro and midrange/control decks can prevent that from happening quite easily by discarding/countering/destroying that Mystic. Again, this is no legacy. You land that Mystic on turn 2, it will almost automatically eat a removal and die right away. So all it did was tutoring a Batterskull that's sitting in your hand.
But let's assume your opponent allows Stoneforge to stay (won't happen very often), and you do put into play a turn 3 Batterskull. There are still plenty of ways to deal with it. Jund can destroy the Batterskull, or just destroy the token, or just put a 4/5 Tarmogoyf or a Tasigur into play and see what you do with your 4/4. But in fact, Jund will simply destroy the Mystic in the first place. Aggro decks will bolt/path Mystic in most cases. If they don't, they can still destroy the Germ, outclass it with Reliquaries, Tarmos, Loxodon Smiters, Voice tokens, sacrifice that Qasali Pridemage and destroy the Batterskull itself (Naya Company), fly over it with a swarm of fliers (Affinity), power through it via Ezuri (Elves) or with lords (Merfolks)etc. Post board all these decks will bring in additional artifact hate to deal with Batterskull.
Grixis Control, Grixis Delver or UW Control have about a billion way to answer that play as well.
So, no. Fair decks in Modern don't succumb to a turn 3 Batterskull, and anyway, can easily prevent that from happening.
Oh and you don't need "immediate answers" to a Batterskull. If you're Jund for example, you can easily recover from a couple Batterskull swings by landing a bigger guy or drawing some removals, especially Kolaghan, or Liliana herself.
This sure is a lot of words to say "I don't play Legacy and I have no idea how this card works". Tarmogoyf does not outclass Batterskull. Loxodon Smiter sure as hell doesn't. How do you read both of those cards and conclude that Smiter is, in any way, a viable solution to this card?The card is extremely strong in fair matchups because dealing with Mystic drags out the game even if you remove it and you can always play the equipment cards later, both of which are excellent when you're in topdeck mode. Batterskull is not particularly vulnerable to most forms of removal. You have completely neglected this card text:
3: Return Batterskull to its owner's hand.
Basically, you just scanned this text and assumed it was irrelevant, because it's not a hard tangible number. What this means is that if you draw your removal when they have three open, it's useless. If the game goes long (and these fair decks you describe intend for it to), you cannot sacrifice a Pridemage or whatever artifact removal spell you have to get rid of it in most cases. You can't just say "oh, I'll just remove it on turn three" because that's not how variance in an actual game of Magic works. You don't always have artifact removal and a clock on turn 3.
Alot of people have been throwing around the "I don't play legacy and have no idea how the card works claims" without actually knowing how the card works...
Battleskull (even in legacy) is actually the weakest thing your opponent can fetch with SFM. If your opponent plays their first SFM... and they grab a battleskull... you are relieved.
Stop trying to say "in legacy" like it means something. It's 100% irrelevant to this discussion. SFM strength in legacy has NOTHING to do with battleskull and everything to do with Jitte.
End of discussion.
If SFM is deemed too powerful for modern it will be because a turn 4 swords + equip is too powerful. Not because of battlleskull. If anything battle-skull would be an argument FOR stoneforge because without it that card will never see play ever again in modern.
That's one of the main things in favor of it in all honesty. Equipment is unplayable in modern right now and the only equipment that would see play are banned.
Would to actually see stoneforge making equipment actually playable again.
God, I can not believe we are in a thread that's gone from SFM is broken to SFM is mediocre or at least perfectly fine/safe to unban.
SFM is an extremely good creature and WOTC has repeatedly said that the power level they desire for the format does not allow a creature to both search a 'X' card and cheat it around counterspells for the same converted mana cost into play.
I know there are a lot of people wanting SFM to be unbanned because they have a personal agenda(want to play a broken deck with which they will have the potential to have a hideous number of win rate or just fits their wallets) but WOTC just knows better and come monday we will all will be @ out normal "SFM is a broken card".
exactly my point. "SFM is a broken card" you realise if the situation were reversed and a card like Snapcaster was on the banlist it would be just as easy to demigogue. "It is ALWAYS a 2 for one" to stop the value you have to counterspell it "removal does nothing" "the damage is done on cast"
in this example you could even say that SFM is MORE fair because it is a squire (1/2) and snappy is a piker(2/1) so the body is even more relevant than SFM.
Now i am being facetious i do not think snapcaster should be banned, but at this point all the detractors are saying is the same broken record. "SFM is broken" In this case all the cards mentioned help every color other than white this is the epitome of my previous statement that people that play rock do not want paper to be any stronger even tho it is "INCREDIBLY" weak right now.
Snapcaster Mage does not even come close to SFM, since you MUST PAY the cost for a Cryptic Command flashback per say. 1U + 1UUU.
So, we just would realise that and it would be totally different. If SFM would cause Batterskull to come into play with its CMC, ( 5 ) and let it resolve around Counterspells it would be ok.
If SFM would only search for something, it would be ok.
If SFM would only cheat into play for 1W an equipment and it required you to have it into hand, it would be also OK.
Except that SFM has to be alive in order to cheat something in. As long as Snapcaster resolves, you can cast that spell whether he lives or not. And while not paying the full cost with SFM, she still requires 2 mana and a full turn of waiting and tapping itself in order to use the ability. Both have power and both have drawbacks.
Agreed. (the point i was less eloquently making myself)
In a theoretical world where SFM became unbanned there would be plenty of times where SFM is a great card (because it is) but there would be other times where its entire existence is devoid of value(SFM comes in for 2 mana then at some future endstep brings in BS and the germ is removed. You now have to bounce and recheat or pay the full equip cost either of these plays directly into the opponents hand.) Snap caster while "always forcing a fair cost" he always gives the caster value not at some future time if things go right. This turn. Also keep in mind snapcaster is flashing back spells you would be casting anyway whether snapcaster existed or not (serum visions, remand, lightning bolt etc.) and SFM tutors for(powerful) things that are not normally playable in modern.
Doesnt a card that is no fair (unfair?) is what we refer to as broken?. At least pushed mannn
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
Doesnt a card that is no fair (unfair?) is what we refer to as broken?. At least pushed mannn
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
Well axman, thats my opinion about SFM, to me its just plain broken.
If you read any of my posts you should know that i dont argue about SFM in modern because i dont really know its possible impact on the metagame.
The only thing im sure about is that, if you follow WOTC logic in previous unbans, then there are close to 0% of chances to come off the banlist.
Theres always the possiblity they go nuts on us and unban Mytstic, that would probably evolve in a revolution of the format:
Until Maro, Forsythe, or someone from Wotc comes out and says SFM is a possible unban in Modern, I think all the talk about SFM is wasted key strokes. Forsythe who is the head of Modern, has said those thinking SFM coming off is crazy thinking. He even said SFM has a grave for itself in Modern, if you want to play SFM go play Legacy.
So, what probably will happen is ...
Something from Bloom may or may not be banned and SotM may come off.
Doesnt a card that is no fair (unfair?) is what we refer to as broken?. At least pushed mannn
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
Until Maro, Forsythe, or someone from Wotc comes out and says SFM is a possible unban in Modern, I think all the talk about SFM is wasted key strokes. Forsythe who is the head of Modern, has said those thinking SFM coming off is crazy thinking. He even said SFM has a grave for itself in Modern, if you want to play SFM go play Legacy.
So, what probably will happen is ...
Something from Bloom may or may not be banned and SotM may come off.
Nothing is certain.
Quote of Forsythe saying SFM is too good for modern? I've never seen this.
If Sword of the Meek comes off: then it's safe to say SFM will never be unbanned.
Also: there is decent reason to speculate about SFM. This is the first time in the history of magic that a "banned card" in a major format was made into a GP promo.
Doesnt a card that is no fair (unfair?) is what we refer to as broken?. At least pushed mannn
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
That's a ridiculous criteria that no card on the ban list satisfies.
Until Maro, Forsythe, or someone from Wotc comes out and says SFM is a possible unban in Modern, I think all the talk about SFM is wasted key strokes. Forsythe who is the head of Modern, has said those thinking SFM coming off is crazy thinking. He even said SFM has a grave for itself in Modern, if you want to play SFM go play Legacy.
So, what probably will happen is ...
Something from Bloom may or may not be banned and SotM may come off.
Nothing is certain.
Be fair now. all discussion on the MTGS forums are wasted keystrokes. it is highly unlikely that wizards gives a single coin flip to anything we say. That said suppressing honest discussion is not a positive thing to do. Furthermore i am surprised to see you doing it. i have thought you were more open minded than some of the people who put zero thought into their posts and just say no.
Beyond that color quality should be a worthy goal. If you feel that it would better addressed by new printings that is fine. There are others of us who feel that a card that could benefit color and deck diversity already exists and happens to be on a banlist for no other reason than fearmongering.
Doesnt a card that is no fair (unfair?) is what we refer to as broken?. At least pushed mannn
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
That's a ridiculous criteria that no card on the ban list satisfies.
That's actually not true. Most of the non-combo cards on the ban list fulfill that requirement.
"skewing the meta" is a recruitment of a ban. And for that to happen it must divide the format into only a handful of different decks: those playing that card and those that don't care about that card. Stonefore mystic would not cause that shift.
fair/unfair are absurd and subjective. Those words grate on my ear drums. either the card is too good for the format or it isn't, none of the other adjectives matter. SFM is too good at this time. And this is coming from someone that wants everything unbanned, but I am realistic and not delusional.
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
That's a ridiculous criteria that no card on the ban list satisfies.
That's actually not true. Most of the non-combo cards on the ban list fulfill that requirement.
"skewing the meta" is a recruitment of a ban. And for that to happen it must divide the format into only a handful of different decks: those playing that card and those that don't care about that card. Stonefore mystic would not cause that shift.
Combo decks like storm don't want cards like jitte and birthing pod
Just like how non-combo decks don't care about the storm cards that are on it, and how the non-affinity decks don't care for the artifact lands.
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
That's a ridiculous criteria that no card on the ban list satisfies.
That's actually not true. Most of the non-combo cards on the ban list fulfill that requirement.
"skewing the meta" is a recruitment of a ban. And for that to happen it must divide the format into only a handful of different decks: those playing that card and those that don't care about that card. Stonefore mystic would not cause that shift.
Combo decks like storm don't want cards like jitte and birthing pod
Just like how non-combo decks don't care about the storm cards that are on it, and how the non-affinity decks don't care for the artifact lands.
You said specifically "EVERY DECK"
Grasping at straws. It was clearly indicted what I meant. There was a reason I didn't mention storm or bloom in my post where I listed the decks.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
That's a ridiculous criteria that no card on the ban list satisfies.
That's actually not true. Most of the non-combo cards on the ban list fulfill that requirement.
"skewing the meta" is a recruitment of a ban. And for that to happen it must divide the format into only a handful of different decks: those playing that card and those that don't care about that card. Stonefore mystic would not cause that shift.
Combo decks like storm don't want cards like jitte and birthing pod
Just like how non-combo decks don't care about the storm cards that are on it, and how the non-affinity decks don't care for the artifact lands.
You said specifically "EVERY DECK"
Grasping at straws. It was clearly indicted what I meant. There was a reason I didn't mention storm or bloom in my post where I listed the decks.
So it's ok to mention that a deck like tron, with it's linear gameplan won't run SFM, but it's not ok to say a deck like storm, with it's linear gameplan won't run birthing pod?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Surely you jest? "snapcaster mage does not even come close to SFM"
You realise SFM lets you find items that are unplayable in the current modern format and snapcaster lets you play the most powerful of all effects in modern a second time
edit: again for clarity sake i AM NOT calling for a snap ban only drawing the obvious comparison between the 2 cards, and considering one is perfectly fine for the format i see no reason to believe that the other would not also be fine for the format.
Except that SFM has to be alive in order to cheat something in. As long as Snapcaster resolves, you can cast that spell whether he lives or not. And while not paying the full cost with SFM, she still requires 2 mana and a full turn of waiting and tapping itself in order to use the ability. Both have power and both have drawbacks.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
This sure is a lot of words to say "I don't play Legacy and I have no idea how this card works". Tarmogoyf does not outclass Batterskull. Loxodon Smiter sure as hell doesn't. How do you read both of those cards and conclude that Smiter is, in any way, a viable solution to this card?The card is extremely strong in fair matchups because dealing with Mystic drags out the game even if you remove it and you can always play the equipment cards later, both of which are excellent when you're in topdeck mode. Batterskull is not particularly vulnerable to most forms of removal. You have completely neglected this card text:
3: Return Batterskull to its owner's hand.
Basically, you just scanned this text and assumed it was irrelevant, because it's not a hard tangible number. What this means is that if you draw your removal when they have three open, it's useless. If the game goes long (and these fair decks you describe intend for it to), you cannot sacrifice a Pridemage or whatever artifact removal spell you have to get rid of it in most cases. You can't just say "oh, I'll just remove it on turn three" because that's not how variance in an actual game of Magic works. You don't always have artifact removal and a clock on turn 3.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Although it is clearly that SFM clause of tutor and cheat works on every format.
Alot of people have been throwing around the "I don't play legacy and have no idea how the card works claims" without actually knowing how the card works...
Battleskull (even in legacy) is actually the weakest thing your opponent can fetch with SFM. If your opponent plays their first SFM... and they grab a battleskull... you are relieved. The only reason why you'd grab battleskull first is if there is a pithing needle or revoker on the board naming Jitte...
Stop trying to say "in legacy" like it means something. It's 100% irrelevant to this discussion. SFM strength in legacy has NOTHING to do with battleskull and everything to do with Jitte.
End of discussion.
If SFM is deemed too powerful for modern it will be because a turn 4 swords + equip is too powerful. Not because of battlleskull. If anything battle-skull would be an argument FOR stoneforge because without it that card will never see play ever again in modern.
EDIT: I also want to point out... a turn 4 swords and equip is within Wizard's self-proclaimed turn 4 rule.
That's one of the main things in favor of it in all honesty. Equipment is unplayable in modern right now and the only equipment that would see play are banned.
Would to actually see stoneforge making equipment actually playable again.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/modern-mailbag-2015-05-18
Agreed. (the point i was less eloquently making myself)
In a theoretical world where SFM became unbanned there would be plenty of times where SFM is a great card (because it is) but there would be other times where its entire existence is devoid of value(SFM comes in for 2 mana then at some future endstep brings in BS and the germ is removed. You now have to bounce and recheat or pay the full equip cost either of these plays directly into the opponents hand.) Snap caster while "always forcing a fair cost" he always gives the caster value not at some future time if things go right. This turn. Also keep in mind snapcaster is flashing back spells you would be casting anyway whether snapcaster existed or not (serum visions, remand, lightning bolt etc.) and SFM tutors for(powerful) things that are not normally playable in modern.
That doesn't say its too powerful for modern. It just says that it would be more fair. More fair != broken.
"pushed" does not mean broken.
For example: Snapcaster is a pushed card. You could make it "more fair" by causing it to exile the top card of your library (and beable to cast that instead) or cause it to loose flash.
All of those would make it a more "fair" card but still playable. That doesn't mean its "too powerful for modern".
Also: "unfair" does not necessarily mean broken. Broken is something that completely skews the meta or changes the way decks play.
I would argue Mystic is an "unfair" card, but not broken.
But I can say that fair means useless in Modern.
Is Snapcaster Mage a fair card? No.
Is Snapcaster Mage broken in Modern. No.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
I'm pretty confident than SFM will completely skew the meta.
If you read any of my posts you should know that i dont argue about SFM in modern because i dont really know its possible impact on the metagame.
The only thing im sure about is that, if you follow WOTC logic in previous unbans, then there are close to 0% of chances to come off the banlist.
Theres always the possiblity they go nuts on us and unban Mytstic, that would probably evolve in a revolution of the format:
So, what probably will happen is ...
Something from Bloom may or may not be banned and SotM may come off.
Nothing is certain.
I'm confident it would not. Tron or Eldrazi decks would not run it (nor would they care). Burn decks would not run it (they would just start running my skullcrack effects main potentially).
Merfolk wouldn't run it or really care about it. Same with affinity. Jund most likely would not run it (or care about it).
Twin would also not universally run it. Though it would make Jeskai Twin a possibility.
The only decks that would run it - BW tokens - Death and Taxes - and new brews.
In order to skew the meta... EVERY deck must want to run it to compete. That would never be the case with SFM.
Quote of Forsythe saying SFM is too good for modern? I've never seen this.
If Sword of the Meek comes off: then it's safe to say SFM will never be unbanned.
Also: there is decent reason to speculate about SFM. This is the first time in the history of magic that a "banned card" in a major format was made into a GP promo.
That's a ridiculous criteria that no card on the ban list satisfies.
Be fair now. all discussion on the MTGS forums are wasted keystrokes. it is highly unlikely that wizards gives a single coin flip to anything we say. That said suppressing honest discussion is not a positive thing to do. Furthermore i am surprised to see you doing it. i have thought you were more open minded than some of the people who put zero thought into their posts and just say no.
Beyond that color quality should be a worthy goal. If you feel that it would better addressed by new printings that is fine. There are others of us who feel that a card that could benefit color and deck diversity already exists and happens to be on a banlist for no other reason than fearmongering.
That's actually not true. Most of the non-combo cards on the ban list fulfill that requirement.
"skewing the meta" is a recruitment of a ban. And for that to happen it must divide the format into only a handful of different decks: those playing that card and those that don't care about that card. Stonefore mystic would not cause that shift.
Combo decks like storm don't want cards like jitte and birthing pod
Just like how non-combo decks don't care about the storm cards that are on it, and how the non-affinity decks don't care for the artifact lands.
You said specifically "EVERY DECK"
Grasping at straws. It was clearly indicted what I meant. There was a reason I didn't mention storm or bloom in my post where I listed the decks.
So it's ok to mention that a deck like tron, with it's linear gameplan won't run SFM, but it's not ok to say a deck like storm, with it's linear gameplan won't run birthing pod?