If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
Can SFM infinitely repeat its tutor trigger on its own? Can it put equipment into play that's not in your hand? DRS can use any of its abilities as many times as it wants so long as you have the mana and a way to untap (turns or otherwise). Not to mention he's 1 mana to play and his repeatable, relevant abilities cost anywhere from 0-1 mana themselves. He's basically a 1 mana Planeswalker that can't be attacked. SFM costs 2 mana herself and her 2 mana cheat-into-play ability is completely irrelevant without an equipment in your hand. Her tutor ability is "free," but you're still paying for the 1/2 body. Considering most packages would only run 2-3 equipment, dealing with any of the pieces of equipment makes her an utterly useless Squire. She is in no way remotely as powerful as Deathrite Shaman. Especially if the WORST THING she can do is put in a 4/4 Lifelink Vigilance creature into play. I'm quivering in my boots over that one.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
Can SFM infinitely repeat its tutor trigger on its own? Can it put equipment into play that's not in your hand? DRS can use any of its abilities as many times as it wants so long as you have the mana and a way to untap (turns or otherwise). Not to mention he's 1 mana to play and his repeatable, relevant abilities cost anywhere from 0-1 mana themselves. SFM costs 2 mana herself and her 2 mana cheat-into-play ability is completely irrelevant without an equipment in your hand. Her tutor ability is "free," but you're still paying for the 1/2 body. Considering most packages would only run 2-3 equipment, dealing with any of the pieces of equipment makes her an utterly useless Squire. She is in no way remotely as powerful as Deathrite Shaman. Especially if the WORST THING she can do is put in a 4/4 Lifelink Vigilance creature into play. I'm quivering in my boots over that one.
I really don't understand how you of all people can advocate for SFM in the format. You take every moment possible to complain about the Twin ban and the meta share of Uxx decks. If SFM were to be unbanned, I'm very confident that Abzan Midrange would be by far the most powerful deck in the format and there would be no reason to run any other fair, interactive deck. Discard, removal, Bob, 'Goyf, SFM, Liliana... it's just far too much.
EDIT: Additionally, you're conflating the argument. I'm not comparing SFM and DRS. It doesn't matter whether DRS is repeatable and SFM isn't. You said that Modern is a format that revolves around creature removal and therefore a 2 drop is safe. Modern is a format that revolves around removal and DRS wasn't safe. Therefore the fact that Modern revolves around removal is an invalid argument when considering a low-costed powerful threat.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
t T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf is fine in modern. deathrite shaman was removed beacuse jund was oppresive. but whos to say sfm would do the same thing?
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
t T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf is fine in modern. deathrite shaman was removed beacuse jund was oppresive. but whos to say sfm would do the same thing?
Anybody who can put black, white, and green together and get Abzan.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
Can SFM infinitely repeat its tutor trigger on its own? Can it put equipment into play that's not in your hand? DRS can use any of its abilities as many times as it wants so long as you have the mana and a way to untap (turns or otherwise). Not to mention he's 1 mana to play and his repeatable, relevant abilities cost anywhere from 0-1 mana themselves. SFM costs 2 mana herself and her 2 mana cheat-into-play ability is completely irrelevant without an equipment in your hand. Her tutor ability is "free," but you're still paying for the 1/2 body. Considering most packages would only run 2-3 equipment, dealing with any of the pieces of equipment makes her an utterly useless Squire. She is in no way remotely as powerful as Deathrite Shaman. Especially if the WORST THING she can do is put in a 4/4 Lifelink Vigilance creature into play. I'm quivering in my boots over that one.
I really don't understand how you of all people can advocate for SFM in the format. You take every moment possible to complain about the Twin ban and the meta share of Uxx decks. If SFM were to be unbanned, I'm very confident that Abzan Midrange would be by far the most powerful deck in the format and there would be no reason to run any other fair, interactive deck. Discard, removal, Bob, 'Goyf, SFM, Liliana... it's just far too much.
What incentive is there to run fair interactive decks now? Especially in Abzan, specifically? Why would Abzan be more powerful than SFM in Esper or Jeskai? What about with Nahiri? Or Mardu with the BR half of Jund + Path and Souls? She opens up lots of deck possibilities without diminishing any of the decks that are doing well now. Tron still won't care. Spell-based burn probably won't care. Merfolk won't care. Grixis and Jund can mostly deal with it. Company can still combo gain/kill. Scapeshift probably doesn't care. Titanshift definitely doesn't care. Infect only looses 1 attacker. Affinity wants to kill before the long game anyway. It sounds like doom and gloom conspiracy theories to assume that Abzan and only Abzan will suddenly become Tier 0 with her.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
Can SFM infinitely repeat its tutor trigger on its own? Can it put equipment into play that's not in your hand? DRS can use any of its abilities as many times as it wants so long as you have the mana and a way to untap (turns or otherwise). Not to mention he's 1 mana to play and his repeatable, relevant abilities cost anywhere from 0-1 mana themselves. SFM costs 2 mana herself and her 2 mana cheat-into-play ability is completely irrelevant without an equipment in your hand. Her tutor ability is "free," but you're still paying for the 1/2 body. Considering most packages would only run 2-3 equipment, dealing with any of the pieces of equipment makes her an utterly useless Squire. She is in no way remotely as powerful as Deathrite Shaman. Especially if the WORST THING she can do is put in a 4/4 Lifelink Vigilance creature into play. I'm quivering in my boots over that one.
I really don't understand how you of all people can advocate for SFM in the format. You take every moment possible to complain about the Twin ban and the meta share of Uxx decks. If SFM were to be unbanned, I'm very confident that Abzan Midrange would be by far the most powerful deck in the format and there would be no reason to run any other fair, interactive deck. Discard, removal, Bob, 'Goyf, SFM, Liliana... it's just far too much.
What incentive is there to run fair interactive decks now? Especially in Abzan, specifically? Why would Abzan be more powerful than SFM in Esper or Jeskai? What about with Nahiri? Or Mardu with the BR half of Jund + Path and Souls? She opens up lots of deck possibilities without diminishing any of the decks that are doing well now. Tron still won't care. Spell-based burn probably won't care. Merfolk won't care. Grixis and Jund can mostly deal with it. Company can still combo gain/kill. Scapeshift probably doesn't care. Titanshift definitely doesn't care. Infect only looses 1 attacker. Affinity wants to kill before the long game anyway. It sounds like doom and gloom conspiracy theories to assume that Abzan and only Abzan will suddenly become Tier 0 with her.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
t T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf is fine in modern. deathrite shaman was removed beacuse jund was oppresive. but whos to say sfm would do the same thing?
Anybody who can put black, white, and green together and get Abzan.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
t T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf is fine in modern. deathrite shaman was removed beacuse jund was oppresive. but whos to say sfm would do the same thing?
Anybody who can put black, white, and green together and get Abzan.
do you have proof of this utter dominance?
First give me your proof that an SFM unban could not possibly be detrimental to the very healthy metagame we're currently enjoying.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
t T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf is fine in modern. deathrite shaman was removed beacuse jund was oppresive. but whos to say sfm would do the same thing?
Anybody who can put black, white, and green together and get Abzan.
do you have proof of this utter dominance?
First give me your proof that an SFM unban could not possibly be detrimental to the very healthy metagame we're currently enjoying.
ive given my theory and youve given yours, so all we can do at this point is waste our time from here on in.ttyl
this is true, however is it much unlike those claiming the card would be to strong? like yourself? without insufficient proof?
The status quo does not have to prove that a card needs to stay banned, especially when the format is basically balanced. If someone wants a card unbanned, they need to prove that the change doesn't violate format rules and improves Modern. If someone wants a card banned, they need to prove that the banlist change improves the format or rights a Modern violation.
Maybe I missed this change but since when / why is the burden of proof for an unban placed on the card or the people calling for an unban? I always thought it was "If someone wants a card banned or to stay banned, they need to prove that the banlist change improves the format or rights a Modern violation." Given that Forschythe wants as short a banlist as is possible which still accomplishes all their other goals, isn't the burden of proof to demonstrate that a card being banned does accomplish one of their other goals always on the pro-banning side? The default position for every card is, or should be, not banned unless it violates X,Y,Z from that list.
this is true, however is it much unlike those claiming the card would be to strong? like yourself? without insufficient proof?
The status quo does not have to prove that a card needs to stay banned, especially when the format is basically balanced. If someone wants a card unbanned, they need to prove that the change doesn't violate format rules and improves Modern. If someone wants a card banned, they need to prove that the banlist change improves the format or rights a Modern violation.
Maybe I missed this change but since when / why is the burden of proof for an unban placed on the card or the people calling for an unban? I always thought it was "If someone wants a card banned or to stay banned, they need to prove that the banlist change improves the format or rights a Modern violation." Given that Forschythe wants as short a banlist as is possible which still accomplishes all their other goals, isn't the burden of proof to demonstrate that a card being banned does accomplish one of their other goals always on the pro-banning side? The default position for every card is, or should be, not banned unless it violates X,Y,Z from that list.
The burden of proof should be on the person making the argument for change, especially in a meta as healthy and diverse as the current one. Why try to fix something that's not broken?
Burden of proof is placed on the one making the claim (context matters here), which is basic logic / debate. If someone makes a claim that is against the status quo (as ktkenshinx put it), then it is their responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. The classic example of this is Russell's Teapot.
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
If the format is "entirely centered around creature removal" and therefore a mere 2 drop couldn't possibly be dangerous, then why was Deathrite Shaman banned? Why do people constantly complain about T1 Thoughtseize, T2 Bob or 'Goyf? Why is SFM immune to those scenarios?
Can SFM infinitely repeat its tutor trigger on its own? Can it put equipment into play that's not in your hand? DRS can use any of its abilities as many times as it wants so long as you have the mana and a way to untap (turns or otherwise). Not to mention he's 1 mana to play and his repeatable, relevant abilities cost anywhere from 0-1 mana themselves. SFM costs 2 mana herself and her 2 mana cheat-into-play ability is completely irrelevant without an equipment in your hand. Her tutor ability is "free," but you're still paying for the 1/2 body. Considering most packages would only run 2-3 equipment, dealing with any of the pieces of equipment makes her an utterly useless Squire. She is in no way remotely as powerful as Deathrite Shaman. Especially if the WORST THING she can do is put in a 4/4 Lifelink Vigilance creature into play. I'm quivering in my boots over that one.
I really don't understand how you of all people can advocate for SFM in the format. You take every moment possible to complain about the Twin ban and the meta share of Uxx decks. If SFM were to be unbanned, I'm very confident that Abzan Midrange would be by far the most powerful deck in the format and there would be no reason to run any other fair, interactive deck. Discard, removal, Bob, 'Goyf, SFM, Liliana... it's just far too much.
EDIT: Additionally, you're conflating the argument. I'm not comparing SFM and DRS. It doesn't matter whether DRS is repeatable and SFM isn't. You said that Modern is a format that revolves around creature removal and therefore a 2 drop is safe. Modern is a format that revolves around removal and DRS wasn't safe. Therefore the fact that Modern revolves around removal is an invalid argument when considering a low-costed powerful threat.
If I have a stack of 100+ SFM I want them unbanned because I would benefit greatly from the price spike that will occur when that happens. That would legitimately be the only reason I want SFM unbanned since the removal argument clearly doesn't work. (See Deathrite Shaman and Splinter Twin ban)
The burden of proof should be on the person making the argument for change, especially in a meta as healthy and diverse as the current one. Why try to fix something that's not broken?
That's what I asked when they banned Twin after probably the most diverse year Modern has had in its history up to that point.
The burden of proof should be on the person making the argument for change, especially in a meta as healthy and diverse as the current one. Why try to fix something that's not broken?
That's what I asked when they banned Twin after probably the most diverse year Modern has had in its history up to that point.
The meta game right now is much more diverse. Thus, it was a good ban.
The Twin ban caught most people off guard and may have been a little premature, but it was definitely good for the long-term health of the format.
But why are we talking about old bans and suggesting new, unnecessary banlist changes? Shouldn't we be out playing the damn game?
The burden of proof should be on the person making the argument for change, especially in a meta as healthy and diverse as the current one. Why try to fix something that's not broken?
That's what I asked when they banned Twin after probably the most diverse year Modern has had in its history up to that point.
The meta game right now is much more diverse. Thus, it was a good ban.
Is it? There were 30 decks across the top 8s of all GPs and PTs last year. 40+ if you count SCG Opens. All types of archetypes were represented as well with no single dominating or oppressive deck. Exclude Eldrazi Winter, it's pretty good now, but we also had Eldrazi Winter... With so many factors at play, it's hard to definitively say it was a good or bad ban. Too many other variables at play for this year. But fact remains that last year was incredibly diverse and any number of decks could do well any given weekend.
But why are we talking about old bans and suggesting new, unnecessary banlist changes? Shouldn't we be out playing the damn game?
Sold most of my MTGO account to build more Commander decks and I only play Modern in paper once a week now. But those Commander decks will be played with the guys over pizza and beer later tonight!
In the meantime, nothing fills the gap like passionate arguing on the internet!
You had Twin that was 12-15% of the meta and going up(IMO it would rise over to 20% easily) and now you have this 12% across different decks like Abzan Company, some more on Scapeshift, Kiki Chord, Control decks, even Humans lol. And lots of other decks as well. Dredgevine won some events as I can see, All-in Zoo and Zoo Company are on the up as well.
It was actually on the decline from summer through the back half of the year, settling between 8-10%, but I guess that's neither here nor there and depends on who you ask. But I don't remember ANY place trending it upward. Also, I'm not disputing that the meta is diverse now, I'm saying it has nothing to do with Twin since it was immensely diverse all last year as well. Pretty much every deck you listed had a Top 8 performance somewhere. A few with wins.
DRS was banned for the same reason that GSZ was. It's a 1 drop that is always a fantastic topdeck, especially in a format without swords to plowshares. Apples to oranges comparing it to stoneforge.
My gut tells me that stoneforge is really more of a control/prison card than a midrange one, but that might be my legacy experience talking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
DRS was banned for the same reason that GSZ was. It's a 1 drop that is always a fantastic topdeck, especially in a format without swords to plowshares. Apples to oranges comparing it to stoneforge.
My gut tells me that stoneforge is really more of a control/prison card than a midrange one, but that might be my legacy experience talking.
I wasn't comparing DRS to Stoneforge. I used DRS as an example to rebut a presumption that creatures are weak in Modern because Modern is a removal heavy format.
The burden of proof should be on the person making the argument for change, especially in a meta as healthy and diverse as the current one. Why try to fix something that's not broken?
That's what I asked when they banned Twin after probably the most diverse year Modern has had in its history up to that point.
I'm happy we're back to arguing about the real crux of this, the Twin ban, instead of spinning our wheels about SFM and other options. The entire time it felt like pro-control advocates were just tiptoeing around the Twin ban when most of us suspected that was the core issue. I'd rather listen to people be upset about that ban than try to explain SFM is safe in Modern because it dies to removal.
seriously anyone who just says stuff about how easy it is to deal with SFM has a dramatically wrong approach to the whole card evaluation matter, this whole way of reasoning is basically pitting a deck against a card, so SFM can't beat a deck on her own, that's true about many cards in the BL as well, DRS wasn't killing you, the T2 Lotv sure did though, when evaluating DRS power level we need to evalute the power level of the cards that will pair with him
underestimating the newly unbaned cards is pretty foolish as well, to me AV is pretty much equal to Dark Confidant, those two cards are comparable in numerous ways, while sotm remains 'undiscovered', we will hear from it in the future, but it seems the format is too hostile towards artifacts due to affinity, BTW AV is legal for a few months and already has it's GP Top8, what more must be done to prove the card is good? i'm not taking BS arguements about how hard it is to stay alive in modern, all it takes is a mountain and a bolt
currently SFM slots into Jeskai, Abzan Midrange,Abzan CoCo and Kiki Chord, all those shells are T1 and T2, with recent tournament success, currently the same people who want SFM unbanned were asking for potential CoCo bans, you do realize that CoCo/Chord can 'fetch' SFM right? also i hear that swords work well against midrange/control shells, like when normally harmless birds carry them
and lastly, get a damn clue and stop underestimating lifelink, it's easily one of the most powerful abilities a creature can have and provides immense board control if on a 3/4+ body
so is modern fair or not? because i find it ridiculous that the same players who are complaining about wotc pushing creatures because newbies love them, also claim that lifelink is nothing because modern is too unfair, how much double standards and hipocrisy do we have to take really?
bottom line the fair things that are on the banlist that never got a chance to see modern could end up being fine. until there is any playtesting done we can theorize all we want but it doesnt prove anything.
seriously anyone who just says stuff about how easy it is to deal with SFM has a dramatically wrong approach to the whole card evaluation matter, this whole way of reasoning is basically pitting a deck against a card, so SFM can't beat a deck on her own, that's true about many cards in the BL as well, DRS wasn't killing you, the T2 Lotv sure did though, when evaluating DRS power level we need to evalute the power level of the cards that will pair with him
underestimating the newly unbaned cards is pretty foolish as well, to me AV is pretty much equal to Dark Confidant, those two cards are comparable in numerous ways, while sotm remains 'undiscovered', we will hear from it in the future, but it seems the format is too hostile towards artifacts due to affinity, BTW AV is legal for a few months and already has it's GP Top8, what more must be done to prove the card is good? i'm not taking BS arguements about how hard it is to stay alive in modern, all it takes is a mountain and a bolt
currently SFM slots into Jeskai, Abzan Midrange,Abzan CoCo and Kiki Chord, all those shells are T1 and T2, with recent tournament success, currently the same people who want SFM unbanned were asking for potential CoCo bans, you do realize that CoCo/Chord can 'fetch' SFM right? also i hear that swords work well against midrange/control shells, like when normally harmless birds carry them
and lastly, get a damn clue and stop underestimating lifelink, it's easily one of the most powerful abilities a creature can have and provides immense board control if on a 3/4+ body
so is modern fair or not? because i find it ridiculous that the same players who are complaining about wotc pushing creatures because newbies love them, also claim that lifelink is nothing because modern is too unfair, how much double standards and hipocrisy do we have to take really?
bottom line the fair things that are on the banlist that never got a chance to see modern could end up being fine. until there is any playtesting done we can theorize all we want but it doesnt prove anything.
You define 'fair' in a really funny way. Yes, there is no win out of nowhere button associated with SFM, but you're talking about an avalanche of card advantage in a color that currently doesn't need help AND boosts multiple tier 1/tier 1.5 strategies.
Again, YOU test it. YOU stop theorizing about how ok it might be until YOU bring us some testing or numbers.
I've haven't posted much here lately because I've been having too much fun enjoying this current metagame. Seriously, this is easily one of the best spots Modern has been in and I really don't see anything that needs to be either banned or unbanned at this point.
I should add that banning Twin was absolutely 100% the right decision to do in retrospect. People kept saying that Twin was the "policeman" of the format, but that really wasn't true. Twin was closer to the NKVD or Gestapo. It was the secret police that silently terrorized the format.
Can SFM infinitely repeat its tutor trigger on its own? Can it put equipment into play that's not in your hand? DRS can use any of its abilities as many times as it wants so long as you have the mana and a way to untap (turns or otherwise). Not to mention he's 1 mana to play and his repeatable, relevant abilities cost anywhere from 0-1 mana themselves. He's basically a 1 mana Planeswalker that can't be attacked. SFM costs 2 mana herself and her 2 mana cheat-into-play ability is completely irrelevant without an equipment in your hand. Her tutor ability is "free," but you're still paying for the 1/2 body. Considering most packages would only run 2-3 equipment, dealing with any of the pieces of equipment makes her an utterly useless Squire. She is in no way remotely as powerful as Deathrite Shaman. Especially if the WORST THING she can do is put in a 4/4 Lifelink Vigilance creature into play. I'm quivering in my boots over that one.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
EDIT: Additionally, you're conflating the argument. I'm not comparing SFM and DRS. It doesn't matter whether DRS is repeatable and SFM isn't. You said that Modern is a format that revolves around creature removal and therefore a 2 drop is safe. Modern is a format that revolves around removal and DRS wasn't safe. Therefore the fact that Modern revolves around removal is an invalid argument when considering a low-costed powerful threat.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
decks playing:
none
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
What incentive is there to run fair interactive decks now? Especially in Abzan, specifically? Why would Abzan be more powerful than SFM in Esper or Jeskai? What about with Nahiri? Or Mardu with the BR half of Jund + Path and Souls? She opens up lots of deck possibilities without diminishing any of the decks that are doing well now. Tron still won't care. Spell-based burn probably won't care. Merfolk won't care. Grixis and Jund can mostly deal with it. Company can still combo gain/kill. Scapeshift probably doesn't care. Titanshift definitely doesn't care. Infect only looses 1 attacker. Affinity wants to kill before the long game anyway. It sounds like doom and gloom conspiracy theories to assume that Abzan and only Abzan will suddenly become Tier 0 with her.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
decks playing:
none
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
decks playing:
none
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
decks playing:
none
Maybe I missed this change but since when / why is the burden of proof for an unban placed on the card or the people calling for an unban? I always thought it was "If someone wants a card banned or to stay banned, they need to prove that the banlist change improves the format or rights a Modern violation." Given that Forschythe wants as short a banlist as is possible which still accomplishes all their other goals, isn't the burden of proof to demonstrate that a card being banned does accomplish one of their other goals always on the pro-banning side? The default position for every card is, or should be, not banned unless it violates X,Y,Z from that list.
The burden of proof should be on the person making the argument for change, especially in a meta as healthy and diverse as the current one. Why try to fix something that's not broken?
If I have a stack of 100+ SFM I want them unbanned because I would benefit greatly from the price spike that will occur when that happens. That would legitimately be the only reason I want SFM unbanned since the removal argument clearly doesn't work. (See Deathrite Shaman and Splinter Twin ban)
That's what I asked when they banned Twin after probably the most diverse year Modern has had in its history up to that point.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The Twin ban caught most people off guard and may have been a little premature, but it was definitely good for the long-term health of the format.
But why are we talking about old bans and suggesting new, unnecessary banlist changes? Shouldn't we be out playing the damn game?
Is it? There were 30 decks across the top 8s of all GPs and PTs last year. 40+ if you count SCG Opens. All types of archetypes were represented as well with no single dominating or oppressive deck. Exclude Eldrazi Winter, it's pretty good now, but we also had Eldrazi Winter... With so many factors at play, it's hard to definitively say it was a good or bad ban. Too many other variables at play for this year. But fact remains that last year was incredibly diverse and any number of decks could do well any given weekend.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Sold most of my MTGO account to build more Commander decks and I only play Modern in paper once a week now. But those Commander decks will be played with the guys over pizza and beer later tonight!
In the meantime, nothing fills the gap like passionate arguing on the internet!
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
It was actually on the decline from summer through the back half of the year, settling between 8-10%, but I guess that's neither here nor there and depends on who you ask. But I don't remember ANY place trending it upward. Also, I'm not disputing that the meta is diverse now, I'm saying it has nothing to do with Twin since it was immensely diverse all last year as well. Pretty much every deck you listed had a Top 8 performance somewhere. A few with wins.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
My gut tells me that stoneforge is really more of a control/prison card than a midrange one, but that might be my legacy experience talking.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I'm happy we're back to arguing about the real crux of this, the Twin ban, instead of spinning our wheels about SFM and other options. The entire time it felt like pro-control advocates were just tiptoeing around the Twin ban when most of us suspected that was the core issue. I'd rather listen to people be upset about that ban than try to explain SFM is safe in Modern because it dies to removal.
bottom line the fair things that are on the banlist that never got a chance to see modern could end up being fine. until there is any playtesting done we can theorize all we want but it doesnt prove anything.
decks playing:
none
You define 'fair' in a really funny way. Yes, there is no win out of nowhere button associated with SFM, but you're talking about an avalanche of card advantage in a color that currently doesn't need help AND boosts multiple tier 1/tier 1.5 strategies.
Again, YOU test it. YOU stop theorizing about how ok it might be until YOU bring us some testing or numbers.
I should add that banning Twin was absolutely 100% the right decision to do in retrospect. People kept saying that Twin was the "policeman" of the format, but that really wasn't true. Twin was closer to the NKVD or Gestapo. It was the secret police that silently terrorized the format.