cfusionpm, agreed. That's why I wasn't really surprised by it. Still doesn't mean I'm not disappointed. To beat the crap out of a dead horse; it is much easier for them to do nothing and continue to say they are watching how the format evolves. It requires no work on their part nor has any definite time frame on which to judge them by.
SFM isn't getting off the list, its rise in play in Legacy recently is pushing it back into fulfilling the "don't want it in modern because of legacy" standard that put it MM and JtmS. Just because some players want to arbitrarily ignore this this rationality doesn't mean WotC will.
I hope when they say the new core set will be designed differently that they mean it will not be designed as a draft ing set but only a constructed design in mind
cfusionpm, agreed. That's why I wasn't really surprised by it. Still doesn't mean I'm not disappointed. To beat the crap out of a dead horse; it is much easier for them to do nothing and continue to say they are watching how the format evolves. It requires no work on their part nor has any definite time frame on which to judge them by.
The problem is they are doing to Modern now what they basically did with Standard these past two years: threats greatly outpacing answers. Most of the decks doing well today are doing so on the backs of two principles: busted new threats/enablers and total lack of any semblance of "reactive" or "control" decks in meaningful representation. Modern now is basically a race to the bottom to see who can do the fastest, most broken, busted, powerful thing, and there is absolutely no safety valve. Even Thoughtseize isn't good enough because decks are either resilient enough or redundant enough not to care. Every now and then we get some rare good games in there, but it feels like every every match boils down to "race them or lose" and "draw my hate cards or lose" (sometimes THAT's not even good enough!) As long as we have a lot of different decks doing these same kinds of strategies, Wizards can dust their hands and say "format looks fine, no need to do anything." Because in the end, Wizards doesn't actually care about format health, they care about the image of the format and if people are showing up to play. As long as people are showing up to play and their image isn't threatened, they have no incentive to do anything positive for the format.
SFM isn't getting off the list, its rise in play in Legacy recently is pushing it back into fulfilling the "don't want it in modern because of legacy" standard that put it MM and JtmS. Just because some players want to arbitrarily ignore this this rationality doesn't mean WotC will.
I hope when they say the new core set will be designed differently that they mean it will not be designed as a draft ing set but only a constructed design in mind
Mental misstep is also banned in legacy. In addition, there are currently 8 cards on the most played legacy cards list that are also modern legal and played more often than SFM in legacy, doesn't mean those should be banned (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/legacy/full/all) Not even to mention the main pull of SFM in legacy is the ridiculously busted-ness of jitte, which will never see the light of day in modern. Seriously, how can you look at this Jund Legacy deck (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15848&d=297313&f=LE) and tell me that isn't essentially the same deck as we have in modern?
And they already stated in the article that the core sets are created with draft in mind, it will just be geared towards newer players.
Interesting that modern doesn't get a mention at all. Kinda annoying, really.
It's not the norm for other formats than those experiencing changes to receive a text. We were pretty lucky that it happened recently. I think it's pretty entitled to suddenly expect a mention every announcement now.
Wizards said recently they would keep their eye on Shadow and look for an easy way to boost white (probably white, right?) in the meantime. I think with the recent Shadow results, Wizards is a little unsure if the format is as stable/diverse as they'd like before releasing SFM. They want to see if Shadow shakes itself out before making those kinds of changes, which is why they didn't pull the trigger this time. If not, they'll have to address the Shadow problem first.
Whether or not you agree with this style of banlist management (remove the problems, then unban cards when things look good), that's how Wizards has historically managed the Modern banlist, so the onus is on anyone disagreeing to come up with reasons why they think Wizards would act differently this time around.
Unbanning Stoneforge Mystic would do a lot to counter Death's Shadow though. Batterskull and both white Swords gain you life, so they play poorly with Shadow. It's not a great card in those decks. But, Batterskull and specifically recurring Batterskulls does make a pretty good counter to Shadow to say nothing of silver bullets like Sword of Feast and Famine vs Jund DS.
I agree that SFM would help fight Shadow, but not for any of these reasons---have fun trying to pull of a SoFaF attack against DSJ! 🤣🤣 If anything, it would help because SFM is a graveyard-independent win condition in white, meaning it slots into decks that can run Rest in Peace but can't compete at their current power level. Still, we really do not know what kind of effect it will have on the metagame, and won't unless it does get unbanned, so I find this kind of speculation unproductive either way.
the card itself really isn't worth the card board its printed on...does it serve a purpose? Sure its a blue 1 drop that might not be a 1/1. I would not put it in a list and expect to win a PTQ or GP though.
No changes was a good call. Let us have some unbans at the next time.
Nope, they will be evaluating how their "new improved answers" from HoD play into the format. Since that is the earliest they said the design philosophy could be implemented. It's so easy for them to continually point to this kind of argument as justification for inaction as opposed to doing any real testing. They want stability before unbanning things but they are constantly releasing new sets. It's a catch-22 that they are more than happy to be caught in.
Next announcement will also be "no changes" unless DS continues to put up the numbers it did at SCG.
It's been about 5 ban announcements in a row where the community seems to embrace a SFM unban only to see no action. Certainly enough to see a trend at this point and I see no reason they would change their approach now.
I don't think the community is embracing unbanning SFM. Just a particular portion of it.
I'd say that the "what cards do you want unbanned" poll shows otherwise. Same with the posts here. Most of the reliable, level headed posters (not that I am one by any means) have all been here saying they don't really care either way but admit it looks totally harmless now. The few posts that have been skeptical of it's unbanning have generally been shot down immediately.
That's the thing though, Wizards doesn't operate on this information (or the reality of a card's true strength). They operate on the image and perception of a card combined with the thoughts and feelings of a very select few "pros" and "insiders" using vague and general terms and questions. Remember, having these kinds of conversations openly or with too many people will give too much information to the public about what cards they are looking at banning/unbanning and would cause confusion and panic. So they rely on what they *think* the card does and how they *feel* it would impact the format. This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't display gross negligence or complete incompetence when it comes to the Modern format, how it operates, the flow of the metagame, or even basic deck construction. Remember, we're talking about a guy who thought Sword of the Meek would break Lantern Control and that Temur and Jeskai decks would rise up in the void, even though Grixis had two established archetypes at the time...
Also remember that in this forum the oh so wise collective said things like "banning probe isn't going to kill Infect"..."or Bloo" "they will still be competitive just slightly slower", where are all of the "twin ban was unjust/warranted/a conspiracy by a evil cabal" lamenting the death of Infect as a T1 U deck?
I would not characterize WotC in such a dismissive and some what slanderous way, they obviously make a estimation based on the 20 something years experience in handling the game and attempt to formulate reasonable hypothesis. The fact that they unbanned SoM regardless of a hypothesis that it might put Lantern over the top only shows that they will make such a hypothesis and measure and make a reasonable risk analysis and if it seems low enough will pull the trigger on the experiment. Are they perfect? No and not because they are incompetent or grossly negligent but because we are all human and capable of being wrong.
The fact is that not a single one of us has knowledge of "a cards true strength" if it has been banned and hasn't seen play in the format. All we have are likely far less informed hypothesis regarding what would occur and really to claim otherwise it to pretend to have knowledge that not you nor I nor any other player posting in here can possibly have.
SFM isn't getting off the list, its rise in play in Legacy recently is pushing it back into fulfilling the "don't want it in modern because of legacy" standard that put it MM and JtmS. Just because some players want to arbitrarily ignore this this rationality doesn't mean WotC will.
I hope when they say the new core set will be designed differently that they mean it will not be designed as a draft ing set but only a constructed design in mind
Mental misstep is also banned in legacy. In addition, there are currently 8 cards on the most played legacy cards list that are also modern legal and played more often than SFM in legacy, doesn't mean those should be banned (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/legacy/full/all) Not even to mention the main pull of SFM in legacy is the ridiculously busted-ness of jitte, which will never see the light of day in modern. Seriously, how can you look at this Jund Legacy deck (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15848&d=297313&f=LE) and tell me that isn't essentially the same deck as we have in modern?
And they already stated in the article that the core sets are created with draft in mind, it will just be geared towards newer players.
I don't disagree with the general point your making that, I've said plenty of times that the only cards I think should be banned at all are ones that have been banned because of actual performance issues like Twin, Pod, DRS, BBE etc.... I would likely make a exception for Dread Return and Hypergenesis and only because they are strict up grades to currently established shells.
I don't get the point of pointing out that MM is banned in Legacy? It seems to go counter to your claim that SFM is safe because Legacy isn't Modern unless your implying that MM is equally fine to test out as legal in modern?
well I can note at least few reasons that the Jund list posted there is way different and more brokenish DRS and Punishing Fire both broken cards both as playsets.
Also remember that in this forum the oh so wise collective said things like "banning probe isn't going to kill Infect"..."or Bloo" "they will still be competitive just slightly slower", where are all of the "twin ban was unjust/warranted/a conspiracy by a evil cabal" lamenting the death of Infect as a T1 U deck?
I was too busy crying over Delver of Secrets going from mediocre to unplayable. It wasn't just the banning of Gitaxian Probe, but the combination of banning Probe and printing Fatal Push that significantly hurt all those decks. I was in the camp wanting a Become Immense ban more than anything and never saw Probe coming. But I knew the minute Probe was banned, it would do a lot of harm to every deck that played it. The only thing I didn't imagine was Death's Shadow not only surviving, but reshaping into the best deck in the format.
I would not characterize WotC in such a dismissive and some what slanderous way, they obviously make a estimation based on the 20 something years experience in handling the game and attempt to formulate reasonable hypothesis.
After these past two years, they have shown they can barely be trusted to create and manage their own game, regardless of format.
The fact is that not a single one of us has knowledge of "a cards true strength" if it has been banned and hasn't seen play in the format. All we have are likely far less informed hypothesis regarding what would occur and really to claim otherwise it to pretend to have knowledge that not you nor I nor any other player posting in here can possibly have.
"All we have" are tons of players that put thousands of hours into deckbuilding, playing, and studying the format. So these people likely know more than a group who tells us to our faces that they don't test these formats for new cards, they certainly don't test for bans and unbans, and most of them don't even play it. If the comments they make on all of their B&R announcements are actually truthful, they display an extremely and worryingly basic, surface-level knowledge of the formats they manage. That is terrifying to me.
Interesting that modern doesn't get a mention at all. Kinda annoying, really.
It's not the norm for other formats than those experiencing changes to receive a text. We were pretty lucky that it happened recently. I think it's pretty entitled to suddenly expect a mention every announcement now.
Wizards said recently they would keep their eye on Shadow and look for an easy way to boost white (probably white, right?) in the meantime. I think with the recent Shadow results, Wizards is a little unsure if the format is as stable/diverse as they'd like before releasing SFM. They want to see if Shadow shakes itself out before making those kinds of changes, which is why they didn't pull the trigger this time. If not, they'll have to address the Shadow problem first.
Whether or not you agree with this style of banlist management (remove the problems, then unban cards when things look good), that's how Wizards has historically managed the Modern banlist, so the onus is on anyone disagreeing to come up with reasons why they think Wizards would act differently this time around.
Unbanning Stoneforge Mystic would do a lot to counter Death's Shadow though. Batterskull and both white Swords gain you life, so they play poorly with Shadow. It's not a great card in those decks. But, Batterskull and specifically recurring Batterskulls does make a pretty good counter to Shadow to say nothing of silver bullets like Sword of Feast and Famine vs Jund DS.
I agree that SFM would help fight Shadow, but not for any of these reasons---have fun trying to pull of a SoFaF attack against DSJ! If anything, it would help because SFM is a graveyard-independent win condition in white, meaning it slots into decks that can run Rest in Peace but can't compete at their current power level. Still, we really do not know what kind of effect it will have on the metagame, and won't unless it does get unbanned, so I find this kind of speculation unproductive either way.
Single most reasonable comment on what unbanning SFM would mean ......We don't know (gasps and screams fill the forum)
I pointed out that mm is banned in legacy because you said they don't want modern looking like legacy, which is why jtms and mm will stay banned. I guess I see your point now that you most likely did not mean misstep itself, but free counterspells? I can only assume that was what you were getting at, at first I thought you did not know that mm was banned.
Drs in that kind list mostly adds speed, with a little inevitability, and punishing fire is there to add inevitably. They don't change how the deck plays or the fact they share about 30 cards.
I would have appreciated a little explaining why nothing has changed though.
The funny thing with stoneforge is that it's pretty crap against grixis shadow anyway. Game one it provides a legit target for their fatal pushes. They have maindeck artifact removal for the equipment. Not to mention batterskull being a 4/4 can't even trade with any of their threats lol.
As a WU player I'm not sure I'd even want to make 6 cuts to my deck to bring in that package.
If true control is to be given a boost it needs access to cards that other decks won't benefit heavily from. JtMS is the only obvious choice... The various cantrips and DTT would greatly boost combo and any blue decks.
Also remember that in this forum the oh so wise collective said things like "banning probe isn't going to kill Infect"..."or Bloo" "they will still be competitive just slightly slower", where are all of the "twin ban was unjust/warranted/a conspiracy by a evil cabal" lamenting the death of Infect as a T1 U deck?
I was too busy crying over Delver of Secrets going from mediocre to unplayable. It wasn't just the banning of Gitaxian Probe, but the combination of banning Probe and printing Fatal Push that significantly hurt all those decks. I was in the camp wanting a Become Immense ban more than anything and never saw Probe coming. But I knew the minute Probe was banned, it would do a lot of harm to every deck that played it. The only thing I didn't imagine was Death's Shadow not only surviving, but reshaping into the best deck in the format.
I would not characterize WotC in such a dismissive and some what slanderous way, they obviously make a estimation based on the 20 something years experience in handling the game and attempt to formulate reasonable hypothesis.
After these past two years, they have shown they can barely be trusted to create and manage their own game, regardless of format.
The fact is that not a single one of us has knowledge of "a cards true strength" if it has been banned and hasn't seen play in the format. All we have are likely far less informed hypothesis regarding what would occur and really to claim otherwise it to pretend to have knowledge that not you nor I nor any other player posting in here can possibly have.
"All we have" are tons of players that put thousands of hours into deckbuilding, playing, and studying the format. So these people likely know more than a group who tells us to our faces that they don't test these formats for new cards, they certainly don't test for bans and unbans, and most of them don't even play it. If the comments they make on all of their B&R announcements are actually truthful, they display an extremely and worryingly basic, surface-level knowledge of the formats they manage. That is terrifying to me.
Or they have a more objective opinion that players with vested interests decks.
And those thousands of players are designing decks with that card in consideration? Oh wait no we all play and test with the meta-game as is in mind. You or I could do a very small experiment similar to the one Modern Nexus did with JtmS and all that will produce is a interesting data point. We do not know what the outcome on the meta-game will be if any card is introduced to the format, for all we know Esper DS just becomes the best new version of the deck running SFM and swords who knows.....no body that is the answer.
If people want to make statements of certainty regarding current decks in the current Meta-game then yes I will weight the player base considerations over those of WotC generally, but this idea that because we are all familiar with how things are now and how the meta-game functions now and some how that informs you to know the exact outcomes of absolute unknown I'm sorry this is illogical and is really just a appeal to the majority.
I didn't say you specifically said anything about how Probes ban would affect the meta-game, I referenced the collective "we" that you appealed to in your post. And still you affirm my position that post ban no one was correct in their predictions and this is the same source your appealing to. So why did we all get it so wrong?
Again faulting humans for making and error is silly humans make errors, if anything WotC should be commended for producing a game for nearly 25 years and only messing up in a major way a handful of times. Look at games like Pokemon or Yugioh they just accept that they make broken poorly designed cards on a regular basis and just restrict the amount you can use etc...
I don't know if its justifiable to criticize WotC for having a surface level knowledge etc..... they have access to so much more data from events than we do that it is far more likely that we are functioning on a very limited view of what the meta-game actually looks like. Like people knocking Storm as a only online deck then the deck performs well at events and suddenly the those people are proven wrong but WotC understood that it is still a force and preordain unbanning would be a very very very risky chance to take.
Wizards is just too preoccupied with how screwed standard is at the moment to care about modern. They probably won't even look in our general direction until standard is in a good place again
Single most reasonable comment on what unbanning SFM would mean ......We don't know (gasps and screams fill the forum)
It's rather pedantic to note that the exact effect of SFM entering the format is unknown. Obviously, we can only playtest (as many have done) and theorize. I have never seen a report from an individual who, upon playtesting SFM, has concerns that the card itself is problematic insofar as the lines of play are concerned. Without exception, every single objection to SFM from individuals who test it have been reserved for how other decks would respond to SFM's presence - a topic with even more uncertainty than the direct effect SFM might have.
Contrast this with the admitted little-to-nothing WotC does for testing in modern, and you might see why individuals feel they have a better grasp on the issue than those purporting to manage the format.
If you hold everything up to the standard of "we must be 100% certain of the outcome before we unban" then nothing will ever fulfill that criteria. That is the same as saying nothing should ever be unbanned, a position with little support.
It has been discussed ad nauseam why SFM is theoretically safe, and all testing data I've ever seen has confirmed that. According to the testing data, SFM is broadly on the same level as cards seeing play in the tier 1 decks that might consider running SFM (meaning little or no net gain for tier 1 decks), with some more granular benefits and drawbacks when you go into the details. Where SFM really offers more to the metagame is when you consider the cards it would replace in tier 2-3+ strategies.
Wizards is just too preoccupied with how screwed standard is at the moment to care about modern. They probably won't even look in our general direction until standard is in a good place again
I understand that this is on the verge of spamming, but did it really take an effort to come up with "Ban Aetherworks Marvel?" Everyone I know, Standard and Modern players (but mostly Modern because that's what I play) already knew this right after Kitty Cat was banned. Some knew it would be next if Cat was banned. Sad stuff.
It's a sad day when a deck that I bought for 3 tournaments on 2 weekends and didn't touch for the past 2-3 weeks gets banned and nobody bats an eye. I guess I'll just have more torn cards (don't tell cfusionpm about my Twins) in my "special" binder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
The biggest benefit of unbanning SFM is that it gives fair decks another viable option. Right now, Death's Shadow is clearly the best thing for a fair deck to be doing because it's the only option that's on par with what the unfair decks are doing. SFM by its very presence would cut into Shadow's meta shares because it would divide the players who want to play fair decks. And although SFM herself isn't great against Shadow decks, the decks she would go in are, namely Abzan midrange, UWx Control, and Death & Taxes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern UBR Grixis Shadow UBR UR Izzet Phoenix UR UW UW Control UW GB GB Rock GB
Commander BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Single most reasonable comment on what unbanning SFM would mean ......We don't know (gasps and screams fill the forum)
It's rather pedantic to note that the exact effect of SFM entering the format is unknown. Obviously, we can only playtest (as many have done) and theorize. I have never seen a report from an individual who, upon playtesting SFM, has concerns that the card itself is problematic insofar as the lines of play are concerned. Without exception, every single objection to SFM from individuals who test it have been reserved for how other decks would respond to SFM's presence - a topic with even more uncertainty than the direct effect SFM might have.
Contrast this with the admitted little-to-nothing WotC does for testing in modern, and you might see why individuals feel they have a better grasp on the issue than those purporting to manage the format.
If you hold everything up to the standard of "we must be 100% certain of the outcome before we unban" then nothing will ever fulfill that criteria. That is the same as saying nothing should ever be unbanned, a position with little support.
It has been discussed ad nauseam why SFM is theoretically safe, and all testing data I've ever seen has confirmed that. According to the testing data, SFM is broadly on the same level as cards seeing play in the tier 1 decks that might consider running SFM (meaning little or no net gain for tier 1 decks), with some more granular benefits and drawbacks when you go into the details. Where SFM really offers more to the metagame is when you consider the cards it would replace in tier 2-3+ strategies.
Not when you have people claiming with absolute certainty that they know exactly what impact it would have. And the "response" other decks would have is part of the affect it would have on the meta-game. They go in tandem and you cannot have one without the other, it doesn't matter if I can design and test a deck that has Punishing Fire and that the deck I made looks fair and fine in regards to lines of play etc... the actual concern is the second point, what affect would Punishing fire have on the overall meta-game? That is the only real important aspect of the question not how does it look in some narrow testing I did.
I would also argue that testing a card like SFM is essentially useless as you did not redesign every deck and establish a actual reflection of what other decks will look like. This is why I said that those types of articles are interesting and can help form opinions but they actually show nothing in regards to the potential risk of any given card.
I play lots of NBL Modern and I actually use SFM a lot, am I supposed to extrapolate that because I SB out my MM more often than my SFM that MM is a safer unban because in a format where everything is legal MM is less useful than SFM? I don't think so.
Also I do not hold a position of 100% certainty, I posted earlier just above or below the comment you responded to about how WotC made a risk assessment of SoM and took the gamble and it so far has turned out fine, same with AV and GGT. GGT was fine until they made Amalgam and friends, so it actually had a very low risk at the time of the unbanning. So I don't appreciate the insinuation that I hold such a view.
Well, I talked about Willy Edel on twitter a little bit.
gkourou: Hey Willy. Big fan here. Do you think Modern should have an unban? (assuming you are on the No bans camp)
Willy Edel: modern is in a great place now that unbans are dangerous. If they wanna shake the format, they could so but otherwise it is risky
Me: About unbans, SFM could may be tried out???
Willy Edel: hell no, SFM is way too strong.
{left out the part that he didn't answer)
I am inclined to say I disagree(after having played a lot with SFM also), but he has to know better than us.
PS: Bfrie is going to be satisfied with the content
I very much disagree as ive been testing with sfm vs and with alot of decks. and it feels on the same power level as much other tier 1 decks.
It gave the above decks more of a tempo/ anti aggro ability, while also giving a good late game ability. punished un-interactive decks, and most notably made non shadow ur/x decks to what I feel as top tier.
this card also helped a bit vs big mana ramp strategies, as it allowed us to tempo them before they had inevitability.
this is great for abzan and maybe a bit too good. this is what willy is probably thinking aswell.
but as for urx it is exactly what we need.
Out of 100 games wit urx,
vs death shadow decks- slight improvement with disruption backed up with sfm it is a bit better than it already is.
vs eldra tron- slight improvement, you neeed a turn 2 mystic most of the time. with also a couple more paths(condemn) in the maindeck.
vs affinity- slight improvement, its a coinflip if they have gal blast and if we have sfm.
vs burn- decent improvement. even if they deal with sfm thats one card less for them and one turn towards us casting bskull
vs dredge- minimal improvement game 1 is still pretty rough, but after sideboard its nice to have a better clock
vs coco/weenie- slight improvement an even grind if you pack decent weenie hate, other wise they can just run you over.
vs gifts storm- slight improvement might need to run more snares, need that turn 3 sfm on the draw to tempo better.
vs titan shift- minimal improvement much like dredge they just dont care..... and also they have bolt for sfm, along with maybe forked bolt( if the meta had alot of sfm/weenies.)
All in all .sfm was a great clock much like giest yet more versatile/resilient. sometimes the opponent would bolt sfm, sometimes they would thoughtsieze batterskulll from you or pulse/kcommand bskull. variance is a part of the game and an interactive and well prepared meta would do fine with this card around( the 75s were tweaked to adjust to this in testing). it feels in no way more broken than what i am playing against in this format.
its a shame that sfm and preordain cant come off for U and W because of other stronger Colours/Decks. dont really think its fair that 2 colours have to suffer for this format...my 2 cents.
Anyone else think it's crazy that the WHOLE TEAM OF WOTC is devoted to fixing standard? I don't know what goes on there but if they have the whole team devoted to fixing standard, they're doing it wrong. They should have dedicated teams to each format. Anyways, I've come around and I think SFM is worth unbanning. It's obviously powerful and it's "fair" and I feel like we're missing that in modern.
Also, I played Stoneblade for years in Legacy, you get Batterskull about 80% of the time
Anyone else think it's crazy that the WHOLE TEAM OF WOTC is devoted to fixing standard? I don't know what goes on there but if they have the whole team devoted to fixing standard, they're doing it wrong. They should have dedicated teams to each format. Anyways, I've come around and I think SFM is worth unbanning. It's obviously powerful and it's "fair" and I feel like we're missing that in modern.
Also, I played Stoneblade for years in Legacy, you get Batterskull about 80% of the time
And how exactly would they "fix" modern? They had the opportunity to manage it... over a decade ago. At this point it's basically a sprawling mess and the best they can do is ban things to make sure stuff doesn't go out of control. The best they can usually do is stop it from degenerating into a turn 3 kill format. I think the format has a lot of room to grow, but it can't do so via the original methods that wizards employed to build the cardpool as what modern needs can not come from standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Anyone else think it's crazy that the WHOLE TEAM OF WOTC is devoted to fixing standard? I don't know what goes on there but if they have the whole team devoted to fixing standard, they're doing it wrong. They should have dedicated teams to each format. Anyways, I've come around and I think SFM is worth unbanning. It's obviously powerful and it's "fair" and I feel like we're missing that in modern.
Also, I played Stoneblade for years in Legacy, you get Batterskull about 80% of the time
And how exactly would they "fix" modern? They had the opportunity to manage it... over a decade ago. At this point it's basically a sprawling mess and the best they can do is ban things to make sure stuff doesn't go out of control. The best they can usually do is stop it from degenerating into a turn 3 kill format. I think the format has a lot of room to grow, but it can't do so via the original methods that wizards employed to build the cardpool as what modern needs can not come from standard.
Sorry mate, I think you misread me, I was talking about fixing standard! I just find it bizarre that they would be lacking manpower to write short blurbs about eternal formats in their B/R announcements that's all! I was referring to the lack of anything for eternal formats from the announcements. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything but wizards needs to put more money into R and D of eternal formats that should remain relatively independent from standard.
I've mentioned this before and got totally shut down by people saying it is unrealistic for them to hire people to test modern. My opinion of it is they shouldn't get to claim modern as their own and made ridiculous profit of modern masters sets if they refuse to put any thought into the format themselves. That is obviously on the player base to enforce which is t going to happen; I just think if wizards wants to own modern then they should clearly own it. I think it may help their long term image to hire some people to manage it but they seem to be very short term profit focused at the moment and those views just don't align.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
SFM isn't getting off the list, its rise in play in Legacy recently is pushing it back into fulfilling the "don't want it in modern because of legacy" standard that put it MM and JtmS. Just because some players want to arbitrarily ignore this this rationality doesn't mean WotC will.
I hope when they say the new core set will be designed differently that they mean it will not be designed as a draft ing set but only a constructed design in mind
The problem is they are doing to Modern now what they basically did with Standard these past two years: threats greatly outpacing answers. Most of the decks doing well today are doing so on the backs of two principles: busted new threats/enablers and total lack of any semblance of "reactive" or "control" decks in meaningful representation. Modern now is basically a race to the bottom to see who can do the fastest, most broken, busted, powerful thing, and there is absolutely no safety valve. Even Thoughtseize isn't good enough because decks are either resilient enough or redundant enough not to care. Every now and then we get some rare good games in there, but it feels like every every match boils down to "race them or lose" and "draw my hate cards or lose" (sometimes THAT's not even good enough!) As long as we have a lot of different decks doing these same kinds of strategies, Wizards can dust their hands and say "format looks fine, no need to do anything." Because in the end, Wizards doesn't actually care about format health, they care about the image of the format and if people are showing up to play. As long as people are showing up to play and their image isn't threatened, they have no incentive to do anything positive for the format.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Mental misstep is also banned in legacy. In addition, there are currently 8 cards on the most played legacy cards list that are also modern legal and played more often than SFM in legacy, doesn't mean those should be banned (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/legacy/full/all) Not even to mention the main pull of SFM in legacy is the ridiculously busted-ness of jitte, which will never see the light of day in modern. Seriously, how can you look at this Jund Legacy deck (http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=15848&d=297313&f=LE) and tell me that isn't essentially the same deck as we have in modern?
And they already stated in the article that the core sets are created with draft in mind, it will just be geared towards newer players.
Counter-Cat
Colorless Eldrazi Stompy
Also remember that in this forum the oh so wise collective said things like "banning probe isn't going to kill Infect"..."or Bloo" "they will still be competitive just slightly slower", where are all of the "twin ban was unjust/warranted/a conspiracy by a evil cabal" lamenting the death of Infect as a T1 U deck?
I would not characterize WotC in such a dismissive and some what slanderous way, they obviously make a estimation based on the 20 something years experience in handling the game and attempt to formulate reasonable hypothesis. The fact that they unbanned SoM regardless of a hypothesis that it might put Lantern over the top only shows that they will make such a hypothesis and measure and make a reasonable risk analysis and if it seems low enough will pull the trigger on the experiment. Are they perfect? No and not because they are incompetent or grossly negligent but because we are all human and capable of being wrong.
The fact is that not a single one of us has knowledge of "a cards true strength" if it has been banned and hasn't seen play in the format. All we have are likely far less informed hypothesis regarding what would occur and really to claim otherwise it to pretend to have knowledge that not you nor I nor any other player posting in here can possibly have.
I don't disagree with the general point your making that, I've said plenty of times that the only cards I think should be banned at all are ones that have been banned because of actual performance issues like Twin, Pod, DRS, BBE etc.... I would likely make a exception for Dread Return and Hypergenesis and only because they are strict up grades to currently established shells.
I don't get the point of pointing out that MM is banned in Legacy? It seems to go counter to your claim that SFM is safe because Legacy isn't Modern unless your implying that MM is equally fine to test out as legal in modern?
well I can note at least few reasons that the Jund list posted there is way different and more brokenish DRS and Punishing Fire both broken cards both as playsets.
After these past two years, they have shown they can barely be trusted to create and manage their own game, regardless of format.
"All we have" are tons of players that put thousands of hours into deckbuilding, playing, and studying the format. So these people likely know more than a group who tells us to our faces that they don't test these formats for new cards, they certainly don't test for bans and unbans, and most of them don't even play it. If the comments they make on all of their B&R announcements are actually truthful, they display an extremely and worryingly basic, surface-level knowledge of the formats they manage. That is terrifying to me.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Single most reasonable comment on what unbanning SFM would mean ......We don't know (gasps and screams fill the forum)
Drs in that kind list mostly adds speed, with a little inevitability, and punishing fire is there to add inevitably. They don't change how the deck plays or the fact they share about 30 cards.
I would have appreciated a little explaining why nothing has changed though.
The funny thing with stoneforge is that it's pretty crap against grixis shadow anyway. Game one it provides a legit target for their fatal pushes. They have maindeck artifact removal for the equipment. Not to mention batterskull being a 4/4 can't even trade with any of their threats lol.
As a WU player I'm not sure I'd even want to make 6 cuts to my deck to bring in that package.
If true control is to be given a boost it needs access to cards that other decks won't benefit heavily from. JtMS is the only obvious choice... The various cantrips and DTT would greatly boost combo and any blue decks.
Or they have a more objective opinion that players with vested interests decks.
And those thousands of players are designing decks with that card in consideration? Oh wait no we all play and test with the meta-game as is in mind. You or I could do a very small experiment similar to the one Modern Nexus did with JtmS and all that will produce is a interesting data point. We do not know what the outcome on the meta-game will be if any card is introduced to the format, for all we know Esper DS just becomes the best new version of the deck running SFM and swords who knows.....no body that is the answer.
If people want to make statements of certainty regarding current decks in the current Meta-game then yes I will weight the player base considerations over those of WotC generally, but this idea that because we are all familiar with how things are now and how the meta-game functions now and some how that informs you to know the exact outcomes of absolute unknown I'm sorry this is illogical and is really just a appeal to the majority.
I didn't say you specifically said anything about how Probes ban would affect the meta-game, I referenced the collective "we" that you appealed to in your post. And still you affirm my position that post ban no one was correct in their predictions and this is the same source your appealing to. So why did we all get it so wrong?
Again faulting humans for making and error is silly humans make errors, if anything WotC should be commended for producing a game for nearly 25 years and only messing up in a major way a handful of times. Look at games like Pokemon or Yugioh they just accept that they make broken poorly designed cards on a regular basis and just restrict the amount you can use etc...
I don't know if its justifiable to criticize WotC for having a surface level knowledge etc..... they have access to so much more data from events than we do that it is far more likely that we are functioning on a very limited view of what the meta-game actually looks like. Like people knocking Storm as a only online deck then the deck performs well at events and suddenly the those people are proven wrong but WotC understood that it is still a force and preordain unbanning would be a very very very risky chance to take.
Contrast this with the admitted little-to-nothing WotC does for testing in modern, and you might see why individuals feel they have a better grasp on the issue than those purporting to manage the format.
If you hold everything up to the standard of "we must be 100% certain of the outcome before we unban" then nothing will ever fulfill that criteria. That is the same as saying nothing should ever be unbanned, a position with little support.
It has been discussed ad nauseam why SFM is theoretically safe, and all testing data I've ever seen has confirmed that. According to the testing data, SFM is broadly on the same level as cards seeing play in the tier 1 decks that might consider running SFM (meaning little or no net gain for tier 1 decks), with some more granular benefits and drawbacks when you go into the details. Where SFM really offers more to the metagame is when you consider the cards it would replace in tier 2-3+ strategies.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I understand that this is on the verge of spamming, but did it really take an effort to come up with "Ban Aetherworks Marvel?" Everyone I know, Standard and Modern players (but mostly Modern because that's what I play) already knew this right after Kitty Cat was banned. Some knew it would be next if Cat was banned. Sad stuff.
It's a sad day when a deck that I bought for 3 tournaments on 2 weekends and didn't touch for the past 2-3 weeks gets banned and nobody bats an eye. I guess I'll just have more torn cards (don't tell cfusionpm about my Twins) in my "special" binder.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)UBR Grixis Shadow UBR
UR Izzet Phoenix UR
UW UW Control UW
GB GB Rock GB
Commander
BG Meren of Clan Nel Toth BG
BGUW Atraxa, Praetor's Voice BGUW
Not when you have people claiming with absolute certainty that they know exactly what impact it would have. And the "response" other decks would have is part of the affect it would have on the meta-game. They go in tandem and you cannot have one without the other, it doesn't matter if I can design and test a deck that has Punishing Fire and that the deck I made looks fair and fine in regards to lines of play etc... the actual concern is the second point, what affect would Punishing fire have on the overall meta-game? That is the only real important aspect of the question not how does it look in some narrow testing I did.
I would also argue that testing a card like SFM is essentially useless as you did not redesign every deck and establish a actual reflection of what other decks will look like. This is why I said that those types of articles are interesting and can help form opinions but they actually show nothing in regards to the potential risk of any given card.
I play lots of NBL Modern and I actually use SFM a lot, am I supposed to extrapolate that because I SB out my MM more often than my SFM that MM is a safer unban because in a format where everything is legal MM is less useful than SFM? I don't think so.
Also I do not hold a position of 100% certainty, I posted earlier just above or below the comment you responded to about how WotC made a risk assessment of SoM and took the gamble and it so far has turned out fine, same with AV and GGT. GGT was fine until they made Amalgam and friends, so it actually had a very low risk at the time of the unbanning. So I don't appreciate the insinuation that I hold such a view.
I very much disagree as ive been testing with sfm vs and with alot of decks. and it feels on the same power level as much other tier 1 decks.
It gave the above decks more of a tempo/ anti aggro ability, while also giving a good late game ability. punished un-interactive decks, and most notably made non shadow ur/x decks to what I feel as top tier.
this card also helped a bit vs big mana ramp strategies, as it allowed us to tempo them before they had inevitability.
this is great for abzan and maybe a bit too good. this is what willy is probably thinking aswell.
but as for urx it is exactly what we need.
Out of 100 games wit urx,
vs death shadow decks- slight improvement with disruption backed up with sfm it is a bit better than it already is.
vs eldra tron- slight improvement, you neeed a turn 2 mystic most of the time. with also a couple more paths(condemn) in the maindeck.
vs affinity- slight improvement, its a coinflip if they have gal blast and if we have sfm.
vs burn- decent improvement. even if they deal with sfm thats one card less for them and one turn towards us casting bskull
vs dredge- minimal improvement game 1 is still pretty rough, but after sideboard its nice to have a better clock
vs coco/weenie- slight improvement an even grind if you pack decent weenie hate, other wise they can just run you over.
vs gifts storm- slight improvement might need to run more snares, need that turn 3 sfm on the draw to tempo better.
vs titan shift- minimal improvement much like dredge they just dont care..... and also they have bolt for sfm, along with maybe forked bolt( if the meta had alot of sfm/weenies.)
All in all .sfm was a great clock much like giest yet more versatile/resilient. sometimes the opponent would bolt sfm, sometimes they would thoughtsieze batterskulll from you or pulse/kcommand bskull. variance is a part of the game and an interactive and well prepared meta would do fine with this card around( the 75s were tweaked to adjust to this in testing). it feels in no way more broken than what i am playing against in this format.
its a shame that sfm and preordain cant come off for U and W because of other stronger Colours/Decks. dont really think its fair that 2 colours have to suffer for this format...my 2 cents.
decks playing:
none
Also, I played Stoneblade for years in Legacy, you get Batterskull about 80% of the time
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
And how exactly would they "fix" modern? They had the opportunity to manage it... over a decade ago. At this point it's basically a sprawling mess and the best they can do is ban things to make sure stuff doesn't go out of control. The best they can usually do is stop it from degenerating into a turn 3 kill format. I think the format has a lot of room to grow, but it can't do so via the original methods that wizards employed to build the cardpool as what modern needs can not come from standard.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Sorry mate, I think you misread me, I was talking about fixing standard! I just find it bizarre that they would be lacking manpower to write short blurbs about eternal formats in their B/R announcements that's all! I was referring to the lack of anything for eternal formats from the announcements. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything but wizards needs to put more money into R and D of eternal formats that should remain relatively independent from standard.