I have a similar opinion on this matter. Equipment has numerous flaws built into it. Limiters on 3 axis.
Cost (including the equip cost
Power
And requiring a creature (the easier card type to interact with, and this imo is the axis which vehicles breaks, since once activated they no longer need the creature)

Additionally they’ve had a lot of time to learn about what works and what doesn’t with equipment. I think it’s very unlikely they will print another low equip cost high powered equipment.

It’s a very very narrow card type whereas creatures are everywhere and by necessity MUST be powerful

On top of that I don’t think that batterskull really helps against death’s shadow. It’s just not very relevant in that matchup. It only pushes out other fringeier lower share decks

I don’t think many tears would be shed over the loss of batterskull. Any decor hag wants skull can easily play a dozen other recursive threats.

Stoneforge would boost at least 3 archetypes and bring a lot of fun gameplay IF they don’t just fetch batterskull every single game and completely invalidate burn and zoo

The other problematic thing with the design argument against Stoneforge is that when Rosewater introduced Vehicles he specifically said they were looking for alternatives to equipment and were concerned about its power level. It’s while good creatures will continue to be printed and this will keep Pod banned, it is far less likely that we will see another good Stoneforge target anytime soon.

The “limits further design” argument has been used since the Pod ban by banned list detractors, but interestingly, not by Wizards. After all, they unbanned GGT and then printed Amalgam and Reunion. Thanks to this example in particular, is in fact precedent for unbanning cards despite their obvious, inevitable synergy with future cards.

As for “mistakes in design,” I think it’s important to remember what Wizards actually wants to achieve with their bans: fun and format diversity. For many players (including me), part of Modern’s appeal is that it contains weirdly designed cards like Wraith, Bauble, and Simian Guide, and Wizards knows that.

So long as these cards don’t hinder competitive diversity or violate the Turn 4 Rule, they are safe, which is why they have not banned as of yet and will not be banned this week (unless, of course, Wizards does find a card like Street Wraith to limit diversity). In any case, “bad design” is a terrible metric with which to measure possible banned list alterations, since it’s one Wizards purposefully avoids.

As for Death’s Shadow, it’s dominance is not a problem at the moment: it is dominant, yes, but it is an easily answerable card that has to be built around. In any case, if it ever became too much of a problem, there are cards that could be banned to reduce the power of the deck without killing it completely, namely Street Wraith. That card, and Mishra’s Bauble, are simply mistakes in Design: cards that are “free” (as in, no mana cost) and replace themselves, allowing decks to run 56 or even 52 cards with fringe benefits.

I don’t think now is the time to move, but if Wizards ever saw the need to take DS down a peg, I hope it’s through Street Wraith.

“Fish: Plays many interchangeable/synergistic threats that work together to accelerate the clock or disrupt opponents, and a small number of noncreature spells.
Modern examples: Merfolk, Death & Taxes”

Read more about my definition here:
http://quietspeculation.com/deaths-shadow-doubt-exploring-aggro-control/

One question though; how do you define fish decks? You mentioned them a few times in the context of death and taxes but the fish decks I’m used to are the vintage decks with small creatures and plenty of countermagic – with merfolk being the original fish (hence the name). I suppose Merfolk and D&T do share the property of being disruptive creature decks so maybe that’s your definition?

I think they are pretty slim. Modern is very healthy right now, so Wizards doesn’t have any glaring problems to address. Since SFM is unlikely to slot into Shadow decks, unbanning it is a safer (in terms of player backlash) way of gently shaking the format away from those strategies. Pros and FNM-goers alike have expressed that they really like the format as-is, and that’s the metric Wizards pays closest attention to.

What do you think the odds of a Death’s Shadow ban are next week or in sometime this year? On one hand, I don’t see that many folks crying for a ban of DS, but the deck is definitely putting up some significant results and DS is at its heart kind of bananas, so I wouldn’t really be surprised to see a ban.