MTG Salvation

Quote from perfekt »

Like the list a lot mate. What Tier do you put it at currently in the Meta?

Hey perfekt! Thanks for commenting. I would say, in a highly subjective way, that it is a strong tier 2 (in the sense that it is probably one of the strongest tier 2 decks). It also has a pretty good matchups against the likes of Titania. Of course that your deck still is highly dependant on your general, and without it your strategy might suffer. I did pretty well with it though, losing some games solely on making misplays or questionable decisions, not really due to the deck being inefficient or bad or anything.

I'm gonna say to the people advocating for stoneforge mystic as if it is the hidden panacea that modern is missing: while I agree that the card itself is probably fine, it will do NOTHING to stop the onslaugh of linear decks. If it somehow becomes too prevalent (since not only control, but also death and taxes can use it effectively), then people will maindeck artifact hate and that will be that.

People who claim that stoneforge mystic is going to fix whatever they think is wrong with modern are, in my view, 100% wrong and their expectations are way too high. I think what people really want is a meta where control and midrange decks are mostly viable in high-level competitive play, which is simply not gonna happen. There are simply too many angles of attack that the linear decks are coming from for the control decks to be able to handle them. Counterspells like daze and force spike are also not gonna help. I think people ignore that humans play cavern of souls and hollow one play cards that recurr from the graveyard. Counterspells are not particularly effective against those decks.

The only real good suggestion I saw here to make control decks more viables is printing more modal spells with better modes in them. Like, izzet charm is good, but it is not there yet. Abrade seems pretty solid, especially in the current meta, and people should play it more. The issue with modal spells is that they're usually overcosted for the effects to compensate for their versatility, so realistically it is hard to imagine that wizards is going to start printing powerful AND cheap modal spells to help the control decks.

Quote from Pistallion »

According to this post, linearity is roughly 60% of the metagame, which is probably a problem

If the numbers from this are accurate, I think it is a bit concerning, not because of linearity, but because Humans might have become too good. It is 4 times more prevalent than the bottom deck on the tier 1 list (bogles), and I'm 100% sure humans will not stop being printed. In fact, I bet they're the most common creature type. I understand that their list is pretty tight, but they can only go upwards from here.

Decks like Hollow One, despite being scary to some people, I believe can be more effective dealt with. And even if they can't, you can ban one of their namesake cards (like Hollow One itself) and the deck crumbles. I do not believe that is the case for humans. You would need multiple bannings, and even then you would need to watch out for future printings. No clue how this will be sorted out.

Quote from cfusionpm »

If we're going to say things like Chalice of the Void or Leyline of Sanctity or Ensnaring Bridge or Ghostly Prison are considered to be "interaction", I have no interest in further discussing this topic.

According to the system I proposed, all of these cards would score a point with the exception of leyline that would score zero. And yes, they are interaction. They care about what your opponent is doing. If you don't want to call those cards interaction, you're gonna need to present a new, workable definition that can be broadly applied. Not just 'I don't particularly like such cards, therefore I don't consider them interactive'.

Quote from javert »

I would add a correction to that definition for the red zone. A creature cards that beats but can be blocked should have a higher score than a unblockable creature. Think Blighted Agent vs Glistener Elf. Against the second there are decision trees about blocking, the first one is pretty much direct damage equal to the card's power.

Anyway, to keep this going I'm going to analyze GDS since this seem fun:
4 Death's shadow 4 points
3 Gurmag Angler 3 points
4 Snapcaster Mage 8 points
4 Street Wraiths 0 points (how often do people bother to cast them?)
1 Tasigur, the golden Fang 2 points, if only because it gives opponents a choice

4 Fatal Push 4 points
4 Opt 0 points
3 Stubborn denial 3 points
4 Thought Scour 0 points
4 Thoughtseize 4 points
1 Temur Battle Rage 0 points
1 Terminate 1 point
2 Dismember 1 point
2 Kholagan's command 4 points (assuming the two choices are always 2 points)

Lands - 0 points

Total: 34 points

Now let's see Jund:

4 Dark Confidant 4 points
4 Tarmogoyf 4 points
3 Scavenging Ooze 6 points
4 Liliana of the Veil 10 points (discard + edict + 0,5 points for the ultimate)
4 Bloodbraid Elf - 8 points (4 + at least 4 for the second card)

2 Thoughtseize 2 points
4 Inquisition of Kozilek 4 points
3 Lighting bolt 6 points
1 Abrupt Decay 1 point
2 Fatal push 2 points
2 Maelstrom pulse 2 points
1 Terminate 2 points
2 Kholaghan's command 4 points

2 Raging ravine 2 points
2 Treetop village 2 points

Total: 59 points

I do like the systems. Gives 0 points to the pointless durdling with cantrips and card digging as it should be while giving credit to creatures that crash into the red zone that can be blocked.

I agree that there are problems with the system where creatures that can't block score the same as creatures that can, but to address this type of problem would further complicate the classification system. Also, I like that you used the system to score two decks, though you did some contextual scoring, in the sense that you didn't score the card in a vaccum, which I honestly think it is better to avoid subjectivity. Doing that way, here is the score for those two decks:

4 Death's shadow - 8 points
3 Gurmag Angler - 6 points
4 Snapcaster Mage - 8 points
4 Street Wraiths - 4 points
1 Tasigur, the golden Fang - 2 points

4 Fatal Push - 4 points
4 Opt - 0 points
3 Stubborn denial - 3 points
4 Thought Scour - 4 points (can target opponent's library)
4 Thoughtseize - 4 points
1 Temur Battle Rage - 0 points
1 Terminate - 1 point
2 Dismember - 2 points
2 Kholagan's command - 4 points

total score - 50 points

4 Dark Confidant - 8 points
4 Tarmogoyf - 8 points
3 Scavenging Ooze - 9 points
4 Liliana of the Veil - 8 points (discard + cares about the board)
4 Bloodbraid Elf - 8 points (but just because creatures score 2)

2 Thoughtseize - 2 points
4 Inquisition of Kozilek - 4 points
3 Lighting bolt - 6 points
1 Abrupt Decay - 1 point
2 Fatal push - 2 points
2 Maelstrom pulse - 2 points
1 Terminate - 1 point
2 Kholaghan's command - 4 points

2 Raging ravine - 4 points
2 Treetop village - 4 points

total score - 75 points

By that you still see that Jund is a more interactive deck than shadow, by a 50% margin, which is quite significant. Just for the sake of it, I will also do storm and bogles.

4 Baral, Chief of Compliance - 8 points
2 Goblin Electromancer - 4 points

1 Lightning Bolt - 2 points
1 Noxious Revival - 0 points
2 Opt - 0 points
1 Repeal - 1 point
4 Serum Visions - 0 points
4 Sleight of Hand - 0 points
4 Desperate Ritual - 0 points
3 Grapeshot - 6 points
4 Manamorphose - 0 points
4 Pyretic Ritual - 0 points
3 Remand - 3 points
4 Gifts Ungiven - 0 points
2 Past in Flames - 0 points

Total score - 22 points

1 Dryad Arbor - 1 point
4 Gladecover Scout - 8 points
4 Slippery Bogle - 8 points
4 Kor Spiritdancer - 8 points

2 Path to Exile - 2 points

4 Ethereal Armor - 4 points (I know this seems bad, but auras can also target opposing creatures)
2 Gryff's Boon - 2 points
2 Hyena Umbra -2 points
4 Rancor - 4 points
4 Spider Umbra - 4 points
4 Daybreak Coronet - 4 points
2 Spirit Mantle - 2 points
4 Leyline of Sanctity - zero points

Total score - 47 points.

Curiously enough, bogles got basically the same amount as Death's Shadow. Some might say this is a problem for the scoring system. If you discount the auras in bogles (which realistically they wouldn't target another creature, if only in very corner cases), you would have they score 25, same as storm. I have problems with contextual scoring, but I think that you could, objectively, estimate how a card is used contextually. It just takes a lot of effort. You could say something like 'if 95% of the time a card is used in a particular way, then you can say the card is just used like that'. For instance, if Street Wraiths are cycled 95% of the time or more, you could say they score zero points, instead of 8. The issue is how to quantify that... you would need a good number of matchups.

I take issue with the current proposed scoring system for interaction, just because I don't think it is correctly encapsulating what interaction is. For instance, lightning bolt scoring 3 because it hits creature and planeswalkers is overinflating bolt's effect. If that is the case, then abrupt decay should score 4, because it hits creatures, walkers, enchantments and artifacts. I'm going to propose a different system for point scoring that, hopefully, address this type of issues.

First I will define interaction as 'anything that can affect, positively or negatively, globally or specifically, one of the opponent's zones'. The opponent's zones are: his battlefield, his graveyard, his library, his hand, himself and 'his stack'. I know the stack is the same for both players, but by 'his stack' I mean 'effects or spells controlled by the opponent that are on the stack'. For each zone that a card is able to interact with, it scores one point.

Before I can explain the rest of the scoring system, let me clarify two things in the definition:

1) 'Positively or Negatively' incorporates simmetrical group hug cards. Rites of Flourishing forces the opponent to draw an extra card, so it scores 1 interaction point. Upwelling, however, doesn't interact with any of the zones previously mentioned, therefore it doesn't score points. Negative effects incorporate things like Bolt, Push, etc.

2) 'Globally or Specifically' incorporates global effects that hit both players zones, like Wrath of God and Night of Soul's Betrayal. Specifically means just the opponent's zones, like inquisition of kozilek.

Now, to score points, besides counting the amount of zones a card interacts, you also have to count the two 'moments' where it is able to interact. The two moments are:

1) When a card is played
2) After the card is played

So, if a card, when played, can interact with one of the opponent's zones, it scores 1 point. Examples of this would be counterspell (works when played, interacts with opponent's stack), or hymn to tourach (works when played, interacts with opponent's hand).

If a card can interact with one or more of the opponent's zones after being played, it gets points accordinly. Goblin Guide counts 2, because it can interact with the opp's battlefield and with the opponent himself. Deathrite Shaman scores 3, because it can interact with the opp's battlefield, the opp's graveyard and the opponent himself. Sphinx's Tutelage scores 1, because it can interact with the opponent's library. Notice that for you to score points, it doesn't matter if a condition needs to be fulfilled, as is the case for tutelage. The only thing that matters is your potential to interact.

There are issues with scoring like that, for instance Grim Lavamancer is no different than a vanilla creature. It scores 2, interacting with the battlefield and the opponent himself, even though someone would instinctively claim that lavamancer is more interactive than, say, monastery swiftspear. However, no system of classification is perfect. Similarly, Snapcaster Mage scores 2, because even though it has a effect when it is played, such effect interacts only with YOUR zone (your graveyard). Meanwhile Dire Fleet Daredevil would score 3.

Examples of cards that interact both when they're played and when they're on board are, for instance, Mystic Snake. Snake scores 3 (1 for the stack when it is played, and 2 for interacting with battlefield and opponent after it is played). Venser, Shaper Savant scores 4 (2 for interacting with the stack and battlefield when it is played, and 2 for interacting with battlefield and opponent after it is played).

There are maybe some hiccups in such system where an extraction effect like surgical extraction is gonna score 3 because it interacts with graveyard, hand and library, but that is the nature of the beast. I think this system can better encapsulate what people mean by 'interaction', but I'm open to modifications, criticism or whatever else it might come.

The idea, after explained, is simple. You just need to ask yourself this:

1) Once this card is played, with how many of the opponent's zones does it interact with? (1 point for each zone)
2) After this card is played, with how many of the opponent's zones does it interact with? (1 point for each zone)

And that's it. What do you guys think? Complex? Not better than the other proposed system? Something else?

EDIT: just quick observations - cards likes Nevermore and Ensnaring Bridge score 1 (interact with the opponent directly and his battlefield, respectively, after they're played). Creatures with defender score 1, because they can only interact with the battlefield. That is the gist of the idea.

Quote from gkourou »

I said the magic word "imo" in the end of the post. It means my opinion. Also, that particular post did present some serious effort. Don't disregard it as an effortless one, please.
PS: Also, this card is in the tier 1 category but in the lower bracket.

Alright, didn't mean to dismiss your effort there, sorry for that.

It is frustrating though, to spend the last amount of posts making a case for a point for someone in the very next breath to disqualify it by saying that it would just 'be better' without going deeper on why they think that is the case.

I obviously agree with some of your picks and disagree with others. I don't understand how people are so afraid of DRS, but think that DTT is maybe ok. Really puzzling to me. Deathrite is a much more powerful card in legacy than it is in modern, and it is not particularly close - in my opinion. Legacy is a format where mana efficiency is paramount, and deathrite gives such efficiency to grixis colors, which usually had to 2 for one themselves with fow or get a turn behind with daze to achieve it. I don't understand people complaining that Hollow One is offensive and saying that Deathrite shouldn't be unbanned. Deathrite is precisely the type of card that helps keeping such strategies in check. That said, it is a very very fair card, so I don't think it would break anything by coming back.

Quote from gkourou »

My logic is that if you unban cards, you should look to unban upside down, in such an order. Meaning first unban Stoneforge Mystic, then Preordain, etc.
You should stop talking about tier 1 cards, like Cloudpost or the others imo.

Heh, I like how you created your list based solely on your personal opinion and is treating it as the end-all-be-all. Clearly you have to agree that people would distribute such 'tiers' of unban in very different ways, with some cards remaining in the same spots and others in different spots. For instance, I agree with you that skullclamp should never be unbanned. I heavily disagree with you regarding cloudpost, and spent my last 10 or so posts arguing for my points, and you simply said 'nah bro, it would be worse than tron' without evidence to back it up. Not to stir the post conversation again, but that is just one example that such 'tiers' are very much subjective and the only objective way to quantify a card's impact is with lots and lots of playtestings.

Quote from CavalryWolfPack »

Why wouldn't you be able to play all of those pieces in a 12-Post deck? Spheres, Stars, Expedition Maps, and the like? That gives even more redundance than what you described. 12-Post is far more resilient because it doesn't need a specific Locus to help recover from land destruction, it just needs a Locus. Post can also get 7 mana by turn three:
T1 Cloudpost
T2 Cloudpost
T3 Glimmerpost

So not only have you now done the exact same thing that you do with Tron, you've also gained 3 life. Furthermore, 12-Post can recover from disruption so much easier than Tron because it doesn't need a specific piece, it just needs a Locus. Even if it plays a Cloudpost, that's still major boost in mana. And again, this doesn't even factor in the ability to play all the same filtering the Tron plays, on top of being able to just play Glimmerpost and gain a bunch of life to buy time. It can feasibly hit 7 mana just as fast and grow at a much faster rate, and is simply better able to play against hate. Tack on that it can out pace aggro decks, and Vesuva is literally the land they want to draw almost every time they get it and it becomes pretty clear that 12-Post is the superior deck.

EDIT: Let's also keep in mind that Tron may play a non-Tron land early for the sake of colors. Saying 12-Post can't take a turn off with a tapland or even play a non-Locus land early doesn't hold water.

Once again: everyone is ignoring the fact that without a cloudpost t1 the deck is playing from behind. Your scenario for 7 mana depends on having TWO cloudposts early in the game, which is 1 in 4 cards followed by 1 in 7 cards, followed by 1 in 4 cards. Tron, on the other hand, needs 1 in 12 cards, then 1 in 8 cards, then 1 in 4 cards. It is simply more consistent. And you ignore the fact that tron can go turn 1 map, turn 2 crack map... or turn 1 star/sphere, turn 2 stirrings/scrying, while the etb in cloud post puts it behind a turn in all these plays.

People saying that it is just the superior deck have no evidence to back it up, simply put. Not only did Tron gain new tools in Ugin/Ulamog, but cloudpost lost its main inevitability engine in Eye of Ugin. Playtest both decks in legacy as means of comparison and you will see which one fairs better.

All of those comments above depend exclusively on how the 12-post is built, which nobody provided a list to. Tron plays ancient stirrings, sylvan scrying, expedition map and cycling effects as ways to find redundant tron pieces, not even getting into the merit of having it in hand.

Yes, if you're counting JUST on topdecks, in the situation I described above, 12-post has more shots because vesuvas are live draws (6 lands for 12-post (9 if you wanna consider glimmerposts) vs 3 for tron). That said, did you factor in all the redundancy that tron has access to so they can find the remaining tron piece? Is 12-post going to play the same amount of redundancy? If so, I would circle back to the problem of having lands come into play tapped making cloudpost decks considerably slower overall. The important thing to note is that 12-post usually played a primeval titan package, not stirrings. In which case the scenario of having more cloudposts early is unrealistic, and so is their chances of recovering from LD being greater than tron.

Quote from genini2 »

It is more resilient because if someone destroys one of your 3 Cloudposts on the field you still have 2 left producing additional mana and drawing any of the 9 remaining is good. With Tron if you lose one of your tron pieces you have two lands that are producing one colorless each and now have to find 1 of the three remaining pieces.

First you need to assemble those 3 cloudposts, which is quite the task even without disruption. You think it is easy to keep reassembling or maintaing cloudposts through disruption?

Imagine that you have 2 cloudposts and 1 glimmerpost, and compare that to having 3 tron lands. In both cases the players have access to 7 mana. You shoot down one tron piece, the tron player goes back to 2 mana, you shoot down one post, the post player goes back to 3. In both cases for the particular decks, 2 and 3 are not that different. Now, if the post players finds another post, he goes back to 5, while the tron player goes back to 7. That is in the scenario where, of course, you manage to have multiple copies of cloudposts, with your opponent only disrupting you after that.

Tron is stronger against disruption, at least in the current configuration vs 12-post primeval titan configuration. It gets even worse when you consider that 12-post had inevitability due to Eye of Ugin fetched with prime-time, but now that card is banned in modern. I'm not sure what 12-post configuration people have in mind that would be as good, strong and resilient as tron, but I would certainly be happy to see it being played.

Quote from ktkenshinx »

Post is significantly more busted than Tron. That is why Tron saw basically zero play while Post was legal, and why Legacy Tron is not a thing but Legacy 12Post is. This is on top of the other reasons people mentioned, such as Glimmerpost stopping aggro, faster ramping to more mana, more resilience to land destruction, etc. Given how often people complain about existing big mana strategies in Modern, there's basically no future where Post is unbanned. Also, do we really need more haymaker decks like Post? SFM seems like such a more reasonable unban discussion.

Please, go to Jeff Hoogland's youtube channel and watch him playing 12-post and Tron in Legacy. Tron, while losing to fast combo decks (which post also loses to), is simply the better deck. Of course the comparison is not perfect because in Legacy the pool of cards is different and that includes wastelands. However, people who play 12-post in legacy are just playing worse tron, and tron is not played because legacy players are very entrechend in their ways (besides both decks not being highly competitive in the format, though they got better with the current metagame).

Tron is more redundant and more resilient to disruption, I don't know from where people get that 12-post is better against disruption than tron. Maybe when sensei's top was legal in legacy 12-post was more of a real deck, now it is a shell of its former self. In any case, in modern the scenario just wouldn't be different. I agree that in the absolute nut-draw of 12 post they might reach 13 mana by turn 4, but that is simpy not necessary to win the game. I agree that there are other more obvious unbans at the eyes of Wizards, but I'm saying post strategies are not better than tron strategies, and people who doubt me can playtest with both decks and see their win %.

Quote from BlueTronFTW »

Punishing Fire, DRS, Cloudpost? At what point do you just add in "I hate modern in its entirety right now and want it replaced by something totally different."

Please, tell me why these cards are a sign that I hate modern. If you don't articulate your arguments onto why you think these cards should not be unbanned, there is no discussion to be had here.

Quote from pierrebai »

Quote from Ashiok »

In tron, you need three cards out of 12 to get to 7 mana, which they can usually achieve on turn 3. [...] So you need 1 card of 4, early in the game.

What are you talking about? Tron need 1 out of 4 THREE times, not 3 out of 12. With cloudpost, a single cloudpost enables your entire busted mana base, which can be done off a single map or sylvan scrying. Tron can be thrown off with a single ghostquarter, not post. There are a few scenarios where tron is better, but they're the miority. Most of the times, post is way better.

I'm saying tron plays 12 copies of the cards that it needs, while post decks play 4, 'in essence'. To achieve tron it doesn't matter the order where you play your tron pieces, you just need to drop one tron piece a turn (that comes into play untapped, mind you) and eventually you get there. Cloudpost decks need a cloudpost to start doing their thing. Yes, one map and one silvan scrying and you get there, sure. And to cast that map and sylvan scrying you had to play 2 non-cloudpost lands. Then on the next turn you can put your cloudpost into play, tapped, and then on the TURN AFTER THAT, if you managed to drop 2 glimmerposts on the firt 2 turns and filter for green, you now have access to 5 mana, maybe 6~8 with another land drop. Congratulations, you're slower than tron. You don't realize that for post strategies to work they need to have cloudpost as one of their first land drops... which is exactly what makes them worse than tron.

They unbanned Mishra's Workshop in the mtgo format????

Have they read Mishra's Workshop??? Talk about a card that generates large swings in a game. This land is absolutely-totally-completely insane. It is funny that they do that in the same breath that they banned ancient tomb. This format man, Wizards really can't manage it properly.

Quote from mrMudcat »

Quote from Ashiok »

Here are the cards in the modern banlist that I wouldn't mind seeing unbanned, one at a time, in no particular order, to see how things shake up:

Cloudpost (I don't understand why this card is banned, period. Tron is better, and it is legal)

Cloudpost is much better than tron. It cares less about the combination of lands (don't need one of each) and gets to absurd amounts of mana quicker (getting 16 mana with 4 lands, etc). Another big deal is that the glimmmerposts gain you life while you are doing this, shoring up the weaker aggro matchups.

My guess is that a modern cloudpost deck would not look like a tron deck but instead run primeval titan and lean on walking ballista as a primary win condition. Casting a primeval titan with a couple of cloudposts/vesuvas would give you an additional 36 mana (6x cloudpost/vesuvas) the following turn after attacking with the titan. Or the titan could gain you 24 life (get 4x glimmerposts/vesuvas).

The other concern with cloudpost is that it would re-enable the eldrazi aggro decks from eldrazi winter. Running 4x cloudpost, 4x glimmerpost, 4x vesuva, 4x eldrazi temple would enable extremely consistent turn 2 TKS, turn 3 reality smasher starts.

Cloudpost is not better than tron. Yes, after you have many posts in play, you generate insane amounts of mana. First you have to get there though. In tron, you need three cards out of 12 to get to 7 mana, which they can usually achieve on turn 3. What about in cloudpost? Let's assume you're playing 12 post, with 4 vesuvas. First, you NEED to have a cloudpost in hand, otherwise your vesuvas won't copy the thing that matters. So you need 1 card of 4, early in the game. By comparison, it is as if tron always needed to drop a mine first to be good. Second, cloudposts and vesuvas come into play tapped. It is hard to state how bad that is. Even if you went cloudpost into cloudpost into cloudpost, you wouldn't have more than 6 colorless mana by turn 3, and give time for your opponent to draw into their field of ruins/ghost quarters/damping spheres.

Cloudpost is inherently worse than tron for these two reasons - you need at least one copy of a specific land EARLY in the game for your deck to start humming, while tron doesn't care about the order in which it draws the tron pieces, and most of your posts come into play tapped, putting you behind the curve all the time. Yes, yes, after you achieve your goal of assembling posts, you have insane amounts of mana. So what? You don't need insane amounts of mana to win, the amount that tron generates (which is 'a lot') is just fine. No need to cast Emrakuls if Karns and Ulamogs will do the job.

Now, let's assume the deck plays with primeval titans, as you stated. How is that different or better than Titan Shift? Titan shift can drop prime-times turn 4 and win on the way back or at least get a land that makes every mountain of theirs become lightning bolt. For cloudpost to drop titan turn 4 they need to go cloudpost -> vesuva/cloudpost -> green source -> green source (or something to filter for the green sources, which would still make them cast the titan turn 3 in a veeery veeery good hand). So, their best case scenario is not even that great, and I assure you they will stumble and fumble much more than that.

Finally, what in cloudpost enables turn 2 TKS? Seriously, in what combination of land drops that don't involve two eldrazi temples is cloudpost going to enable turn 2 TKS? If you drop a cloudpost, then another, you have 4 mana, 2 of which is coming into play tapped, so you DON'T have turn 2 TKS. You can try and think of any combination, there is none besides the already existing eldrazi temple -> eldrazi temple that achieves that. The only real valid concern about cloudpost is if it will generate a better amulet of vigor deck, but we simply have no way to know that until we unban the card.

EDIT: the only way it would achieve turn 2 TKS is with SSG help, which you did not mention. You would need to go cloudpost -> glimmerpost + SSG. With the lands alone, you can't do it.

Here are the cards in the modern banlist that I wouldn't mind seeing unbanned, one at a time, in no particular order, to see how things shake up:

Birthing Pod (I don't agree with this ban, and I actually think CoCo and Pod decks pull green towards different directions, which means that pod could open up new strategies and amplify diversity. I do think there is an argument that pod could end up being just another unfair deck, but I don't see it that way).

Cloudpost (I don't understand why this card is banned, period. Tron is better, and it is legal)

Dark Depths (this - together with another unban that I will comment on soon - can create a prototype for a lands archetype in modern, while also generating turbo depths style decks)

Deathrite Shaman (another quintessencial card for fair midrange strategies - it is unfatomable to me why this card is banned in modern. It covers bases that GBx strategies need to be covering and helps those decks against unfair strategies on game 1)

Green Sun's Zenith (this card is fine in my view, can create some cool toolbox archetypes. I think it would only need to be rebanned if it created some sort of incredibly fast and consistent creature combo deck, which is not impossible, but in my mind also not that likely)

Ponder and Preordain (these cards should never be banned in any format that wants fair decks to thrive. Yes, it makes storm stronger, and other blue-based combo decks, but 1) there aren't that many good blue-based combo decks besides storm and 2) storm is about to receive more hate from another hate card in damping sphere)

Punishing Fire (quintessencial for any lands prototype, this card is not too strong for modern. 2 mana for a shock is DEFINITELY below modern power level, and you won't always have grove to recurr it. Even if you do, plenty of aggro decks can already overpower this. This would be another tool for fair decks to look into)

Splinter Twin (I'm willing to see this back in modern, if anything to have a different strategy coming back to the fold)

Stoneforge Mystic (As others have stated, a perfectly balanced card for modern power level)

Umezawa's Jitte (This is a powerful card, but I really don't know why it is banned. This card basically benefits midrange strategies, that are in need of some help, so I think it is perfectly fine, not to mention that artifact hate in modern is already prevalent to counterbalance this card's power level)

Everything else I think it makes the format too degenerate (GGT, Dread Return, Rite of Flame, Eye of Ugin, etc.) or too unpleasant to play against (sensei's divining top, mental misstep, gitaxian probe, treasure cruise, DTT, etc.). I don't think the delve blue spells should return to the format. These cards are way too powerful in formats with fetchlands, and those who think DTT is not that great of a offender as TC think that only because TC is the best delve spell and they both coexisted in modern. In legacy, TC was banned first, DTT remained and quickly created a tier 1 strategy in monoblue omnitell. These spells are just mistakes, and should never have been designed. They simply can't see play in formats where fetchlands exist.