MTG Salvation

There is absolutely no excuse for saying SFM is too powerful for Modern. The only reason it's still banned is the same reason Twin is still banned: It's already banned, and WOTC doesn't feel like unbanning it, regardless of how it would be in the current format. Nothing more, nothing less.

That assumes a diverse set of options is better then a single gameplan ie is it better to be great at one thing or good at multiple things.

Quote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »

That assumes a diverse set of options is better then a single gameplan ie is it better to be great at one thing or good at multiple things.

UW is still a top tier deck

Not on MTGO aint...still that doesn't disprove my point. My point is being great at only a single thing is not inherently worse then being good at a lot of things.

Quote from Pistallion »

Quote from AUTUMNTWILIGHT »

That assumes a diverse set of options is better then a single gameplan ie is it better to be great at one thing or good at multiple things.

UW is still a top tier deck

Stoneforge would add to diversity then. Because the way UW is constructed now (heavily relying on 4x Terminus, [supplementary sweepers, and winning with lands and planeswalkers) they would want nothing to do with creatures that are actively bad when played along side their best answers. A deck that ran SFM would look very different than the UW decks that appear today, and that would be a good thing. It would be an increase in diversity options.

Probably but I didnt mean that. I was responding to the quote "That assumes a diverse set of options is better then a single gameplan" and I was pointing out that this isn't necessarily true. UW is top 5 deck in modern right now

Quote from cfusionpm »

There is absolutely no excuse for saying SFM is too powerful for Modern. The only reason it's still banned is the same reason Twin is still banned: It's already banned, and WOTC doesn't feel like unbanning it, regardless of how it would be in the current format. Nothing more, nothing less.

what you still arent getting is that there is a third reason for not unbanning. wizards may not think a card is too powerful, but what it would do might be detrimental to the format; at least by whatever metrics THEY use to determine that.

you seem bent on believing that SFM would be unplayable, and i cant sway you with conjecture and opinions. i happen to believe stoneforge wouldnt warp the format, nor propel a deck into a state where it wins too frequently. however i also believe it would be a powerful threat for many midrange (or midrange-control) shells, which clearly already have tools to deal with degenerate stuff - or else they wouldnt exist currently. creature power isnt determined by how much power you can put to the board, if it was literally half the creatures in modern would be unplayable because X deck can put Y power on turn Z.

I think Junk would be the best deck for it personally, and it would do good things, but to say that the card itself is an issue, is just a bridge too far for me. Literally K-Command it and laugh until you pass out.

If people say with a straight face that they think Stoneforge Mystic is legitimately too powerful, given the current power level of Modern, then there is no productive way to continue this conversation. At this point, I can't even tell who is trolling and who actually believes that. Either way, there is no justifiable defense for SFM being banned in this format.

I couldnt even list all the things more powerful than SFM. Someone, queue up the Michael Jordan 'Stop, Get some help.' GIF. Its nonsense, and I was not joking when I said its beneath the shredded dignity of this thread, to discuss it.

Quote from gkourou »

Then you and idsurge, come and say "please ban Twin talk so I do not have to tolerate things I do not like". This feels childish at best, even if I agree with lots of stuff you say at times, and even enjoy the decks you enjoy as well, from what I gather, and even if I want Twin back. Please do not say this line again. It downgrades the quality of this forum.

Most of the animosity comes specifically from being asked to provide opinions, evidence, and support for our arguments, then spending hours upon hours making those arguments, gathering and analyzing numbers to support that analysis to the best of our abilities, and then have it thrown out the window and mostly ignored. Meanwhile, the impossible-to-prove is asked of us, while simultaneously NOT requiring that same level of scrutiny for others.

I don't want to talk about Twin because I don't want to waste my time and efforts correcting people and getting chastised for it. There's nothing to be said that hasn't already been said, and there is simply no defensible position anyone can reasonably hold to keep Twin banned other than "it's banned, therefore it should stay banned."

Adding a new deck that would prey on uninteractive decks would of course have some effect on their overall viability in the metagame, but I don't think it would be a major one. Those decks were viable still when Twin was 12% of the Modern meta. I've said many times that I don't think Twin would still be a 12% deck, it would probably be around a ~7% deck today. A 7% deck is just not ubiquitous enough to push entire strategies out of the format. Does it make them a little worse? Yes. Are they still competitively viable? Yes.

I wish we had a meaningful meta site these days. MTGGoldfish has the following.

Humans 4.97%
Jund 4.97%
Dredge 4.82%
Bant Spirits 4.37%
UW Control 4.07%
Burn 4.07%
G-Tron 3.92%
UWR 3.61%
GDS 2.56%
Hollow One 2.56%
Storm 2.56%

Now, this is curated data thanks to Wizards, but even if we pretend some deck would hit 7%, that would be a 'huge' portion of the field based on nothing being over 5%.

Quote from idSurge »

Now, this is curated data thanks to Wizards, but even if we pretend some deck would hit 7%, that would be a 'huge' portion of the field based on nothing being over 5%.

Based on the way things are reported, I doubt we would ever see a deck over about 5 or 6%. Out of 100 5-0 decks, if 49 of them were unique decks and the rest were all a single deck, we would see reporting that everything was a nice healthy 50 different decks.

The fact that one random rogue deck carries the same weight every report as a deck with 20 or more 5-0s is exactly why we will never see the true numbers, and we continue to live with this illusion of diversity. The illusion of diversity then causes for chaos and randomness at events, which then produce chaotic and random outcomes, perpetuating a cycle of "format health" driven by purposely hiding information on that very format. Pretty lazy cop-out, IMO.

Thing is, I'm not convinced its even relevant. Do we see rogue decks spike events that likely (likely) they cannot repeat much? Yes. Do we also see untuned decks place well in events? Do we see 'bad' decks place well in events? Absolutely.

Its the truth of Modern that unless you are a true Tier 3 pile, you PROBABLY have enough game to be a competitive viable option.

BridgeVine see's little to no play compared to Hollow One and Dredge, yet we know its powerful, its simply all in.

I think there is an illusion of diversity as you say, but there is also viability, in decks that are not popular.

Quote from idSurge »

Thing is, I'm not convinced its even relevant. Do we see rogue decks spike events that likely (likely) they cannot repeat much? Yes. Do we also see untuned decks place well in events? Do we see 'bad' decks place well in events? Absolutely.

Its the truth of Modern that unless you are a true Tier 3 pile, you PROBABLY have enough game to be a competitive viable option.

BridgeVine see's little to no play compared to Hollow One and Dredge, yet we know its powerful, its simply all in.

I think there is an illusion of diversity as you say, but there is also viability, in decks that are not popular.

True. And this is especially true in narrow, explosive decks that are difficult to interact with. When everyone sees it coming, it's easy to prepare for. When it "comes out of nowhere" and you don't have your 6 targeted sideboard slots and tweaked main deck choices, you simply get run over. I don't particularly find those kinds of games enjoyable or fun, but I could see how it leads to... "diversity."

...you do realize that every time you respond to a "twin-hater" or whatever, it's you choosing to engage, right?

Rather than banning all Twin-talk, just... don't engage.

Quote from spawnofhastur »

...you do realize that every time you respond to a "twin-hater" or whatever, it's you choosing to engage, right?

Rather than banning all Twin-talk, just... don't engage.

And then we just continue to perpetuate and exaggerate myths and legends that people accept as truth and fact. It's literally a no-win scenario.

Quote from cfusionpm »

True. And this is especially true in narrow, explosive decks that are difficult to interact with. When everyone sees it coming, it's easy to prepare for. When it "comes out of nowhere" and you don't have your 6 targeted sideboard slots and tweaked main deck choices, you simply get run over. I don't particularly find those kinds of games enjoyable or fun, but I could see how it leads to... "diversity."

This is why, despite all logic, I go back to something like Blue Moon. I would rather be on the side of 'stop doing that' than 'let me try and sneak through here for a quick win if I dodge the hate'.

It took me two days to drop the dedicated GY Arclight deck and go back to Blue Moon, because I just dont like fighting through hate.

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from spawnofhastur »

...you do realize that every time you respond to a "twin-hater" or whatever, it's you choosing to engage, right?

Rather than banning all Twin-talk, just... don't engage.

And then we just continue to perpetuate and exaggerate myths and legends that people accept as truth and fact. It's literally a no-win scenario.

What's a win? A Twin unban? You're speaking to the wrong crowd for that. Or perhaps 100% consensus on a Twin unban in this thread? You'll never get me. I've seen all your numbers and arguments and I simply disagree with both some of your premises and some of your conclusions. The Twin ban was very obviously intended to benefit the format in multiple ways. It failed at some, and succeeded at others. But all you focus on is those failures and argue those failures necessitate an unban. It's utterly tiresome.

As for SFM, I believe it should stay banned. I agree with most in the thread that in a vacuum the card by itself is not too powerful for the format. But we know that's not all that WotC looks at. They have a nuanced approach to just about everything, and I can count on 1 hand the number of people in the MtG community who understand nuance.

Quote from rcwraspy »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from spawnofhastur »

...you do realize that every time you respond to a "twin-hater" or whatever, it's you choosing to engage, right?

Rather than banning all Twin-talk, just... don't engage.

And then we just continue to perpetuate and exaggerate myths and legends that people accept as truth and fact. It's literally a no-win scenario.

What's a win?

At least getting basic facts about the deck or its history accurate. I honestly don't care to talk about it and I don't want to talk about it. I just hate seeing the fear-mongering and misinformation all over the place; which is why I'd rather we just ban discussion again. It's clear WOTC is not going to do anything about it (or SFM, for that matter) until they feel like it. Any reasons for why they might or might not feel like it are completely up in the air (as this last two years has shown us), so anything we say here is ultimately useless.

Quote from idSurge »

I wish we had a meaningful meta site these days. MTGGoldfish has the following.

Humans 4.97%
Jund 4.97%
Dredge 4.82%
Bant Spirits 4.37%
UW Control 4.07%
Burn 4.07%
G-Tron 3.92%
UWR 3.61%
GDS 2.56%
Hollow One 2.56%
Storm 2.56%

Now, this is curated data thanks to Wizards, but even if we pretend some deck would hit 7%, that would be a 'huge' portion of the field based on nothing being over 5%.

I meant 7% actual meta share, not the fake one we see from WotC. Humans was at like a 12% meta not including the MTGO leagues at one point this year, but the overall number from MTGGoldfish never got higher than 7%, I believe.

Quote from rcwraspy »

Quote from cfusionpm »

Quote from spawnofhastur »

...you do realize that every time you respond to a "twin-hater" or whatever, it's you choosing to engage, right?

Rather than banning all Twin-talk, just... don't engage.

And then we just continue to perpetuate and exaggerate myths and legends that people accept as truth and fact. It's literally a no-win scenario.

What's a win? A Twin unban?

A win is when people argue an unban or not on valid grounds, and stop repeating the same untruths and poor arguments. It's like how it seems like we've finally stopped people from arguing that we can't unban SFM because it limits their equipment design space in Standard. That's a false premise that most of us can agree on, but we still constantly have people coming in here with false premises regarding a Twin unban.

Playing Devil's Advocate here -

In some ways, you can't blame someone for arguing on invalid grounds (hope that makes some sense) because it's what kept cards like Sword of the Meek banned since the beginning. "Dark Depths is too good, so we can't unban Sword of the Meek." Lol. "It would make Lantern Control too good." More lulz.

Also I do agree that there will probably never be anything as good as the Sword cycle or Batterskull, but with Wizards, you never really know. Why would they print a card like Creeping Chill? It makes no sense.

I would agree that we shouldn't be surprised when people base an argument on invalid grounds, but I think it is healthy to respectfully point out why those grounds are invalid. Pointing this out might, in some cases, help a person understand why their logic was faulty. If they refuse to accept that their logic was faulty then we can infer that their motives were not to arrive at truth, but to attempt to convince others that what they feel is true must be true. Personally, this whole Twin thing feels much like a religion, and I am not surprised in the coincidence that the believers were, more often than not, former Twin players.

Sooo, I just fixed up my buddy's Dredge deck with Creeping Chills and played some games with and against it for the first time. Dear God... It's so subtle what that card does for the deck, but it's incredibly powerful. My early feeling is that Dredge is busted again, but we'll see.