Great Way for the DCI to Increase Interest in Legacy

[Clark Kant]

All while making the format fluctuate a bit more, and thus making it less stagnant, the main problem people seem to have with Legacy.

Edit: Please disregard the first page of replies. I forgot to even say that this vote is not a one time thing, and it seems people thought I meant that the results of the first vote would be permanent. The initial post has been edited and completely revamped in order to address and clarify those concerns.

Wizards has done many You Make the Card votes using their website.

Using a similar technique, they can easily do a You Make the Banned List Challenge for Legacy each time the B&R changes date comes around. It would make a lot of sense to begin the voting process with the same time a new set gets released. That's when the site gets the most traffic, and people get to see the newer cards that may interact with changes before making thier decision.

A few rules...

To be able to vote, you have to log in with your username to the Wizards website, and it's ip checked too. So to cast multiple votes, you would need multiple emails, multiple accounts and multiple computers. People may bother to cast an extra vote or two if they really care, but no more.

Then before you can vote, you have to answer five questions (randomly chosen for each person from a decent sized question bank) that would be obvious to anyone that actually plays the format.

Examples of such questions would be...

Which of the following are considered two of the best decks in the format?

A. Life and Tooth & Nail
B. Threshold and Goblins
C. Elves and Nether Void

Which of the following isn’t an actual decently established deck in legacy?

If you answer four of the five questions correctly, you advance to the voting page.

There you see a list of the less powerful cards currently banned in the format, ie. cards that Wizards frequently get emails about asking them to unban it, each card with a blurb following it explaining what's so broken about the card. Not every banned card needs to be listed. There is absolutely no reason to put obviously broken cards like Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall and Contract from Beyond up for vote.

And you see a list of a bunch of cards that are typically thrown around as being too powerful and/or banworthy in the format, ie. the cards that Wizards get emails about and such. Cards like Goblin Ringleader etc.

The point isn't that players will always make the best choices. It's that it allows the format to fluctuate a lot more, and in turn generate more diversity and interest.

And if I didn't make it clear, I mean for this process to be done everytime before a banned & restricted announcement.

This means that every three months, the format will fluctuate, but at the same time, players don't have to be concerned about investing in Legacy cards and losing their investment because odds are, even if by some crazy chance FoW gets banned for three months, (which I promise you it won't, most legacy players know the importance of the card) it will be back in a few months.

The DCI would be required to abide by the votes outcome but gets a few blackballs every year if and only if players do something utterly ridiculous, like unban Black Lotus, which once again isn't going to happen, so I don't think the blackballs would ever be used. Also, if results come out in favor of banning two cards to weaken the same deck, such as both Lackey and Ringleader being banned, they have to ban the card that got a higher percentage of the vote.

If some really wants to, they are free to write an article about this, the only way to ensure Wizards see the idea. I would if I had a little more time or was atleast a better writer.

[TeenieBopper]

Finally, as a last line of security, it's made clear that while the results of this poll will be strongly indicative of what changes are made to the Banned & Restricted List, but the DCI gets the final call. Just because the majority of people crazy ask that Demonic Tutor be unbanned

And therein lies the problem. If the DCI felt that that the banned list needed changing, they'd do it. And to be perfectly honest, I trust less than 1% of people's opinions on the banned list, the DCI included.

[Bryant Cook]

And therein lies the problem. If the DCI felt that that the banned list needed changing, they'd do it. And to be perfectly honest, I trust less than 1% of people's opinions on the banned list, the DCI included.

QFT.

[Nightmare]

Then before you can vote, you have to answer five questions (randomly chosen) chosen for each person from a decent sized question bankd) that would be obvious to anyone that actually plays the format.Lies. It would be obvious to anyone who reads The Source. Legacy is a casual player's format. Many of them think Elves IS a DTB.



There you see a list of all the cards that are currently banned in the format, each with a blurb following it explaining what's so broken about the card.I'd like to see Wizards do this anyway. Seriously, Land Tax people.


And you see a list of a bunch of cards that are typically thrown around as being too powerful and/or banworthy in the format. Cards like Goblin Matron etc.Thrown around by whom? You? Me? Timmy at the kitchen table? Up until this point, a 3 mana 1/1 that kinda Demonic Tutors has never even been suggested as a banworthy card from Goblins. Thank you for making the point that people have no idea what should be banned.


Finally, as a last line of security, it's made clear that while the results of this poll will be strongly indicative of what changes are made to the Banned & Restricted List, but the DCI gets the final call. Just because the majority of people crazy ask that Demonic Tutor be unbannedIf it's ultimately up to the DCI, then why bother in the first place? So they can get the opinion of a small group of players who know about the format? Shit, just send them a link to The Source.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Thrown around by whom? You? Me? Timmy at the kitchen table? Up until this point, a 3 mana 1/1 that kinda Demonic Tutors has never even been suggested as a banworthy card from Goblins. Thank you for making the point that people have no idea what should be banned.

Who came in your cornflakes, grumpy pants?


If it's ultimately up to the DCI, then why bother in the first place? So they can get the opinion of a small group of players who know about the format? Shit, just send them a link to The Source.

While I'm pretty skeptical about the form that Clark is suggesting, I do think that the DCI should listen more to the players, or, more importantly, do some effing playtesting, or look at tournement results. But it's obvious at this point they'll wait until after GP: Colombus, if they do anything then.

[nitewolf9]

Who came in your cornflakes, grumpy pants?


It was me...:cry:

But yeah, wizards needs a reason to support legacy in order for anything to happen. Without financial motivation why would they bother. Although I do get a sense that legacy is catching on more and more, they will do nothing unless enough people push on them...and the right people at that (maybe some highly ranked pro players that care about this format have more pull when voicing their opinions to the DCI, that's where we should start I think...get the right people on our sides).

[Machinus]

I hope they wouldn't take these poll results seriously, because they would be awful.

The next cycle should consider the unbannings I suggested last year. That would be a good start.

[Black and Blue]

... I do think that the DCI should listen more to the players... They are listening. They are listening to the people that are whining about cards that their pet decks can't beat.

Linky (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af149)

First off, I got some great mail in response to last week’s B&R article. The two most commonly repeated concerns were [...] that either Goblin Lackey or Aether Vial should be banned from Legacy. Both items will be discussed for the next round of changes, although there is no guarantee that either will actually occur. Just want to be clear that we are, in fact, listening.So start writing well thought and non-bitching e-mails to Aaron if you want stuff banned/unbanned.

[Clark Kant]

Once again, this isn't about getting stuff banned.

This is about making Legacy a little less stagnant, a little more variable, without kicking blocks and blocks of cards out like Standard and Extended do. Stagnation facing the same deck over and over again for many rounds each tournament are why people have slowly been leaving the format.

[edgewalker]

But what if people aren't leaving the format? Like many people have mentioned before it seems people are actually entering the format. Since the birth of legacy I think people can safely say the format is going support and players albeit a slow one.

With that said, I think putting the choice in the people's hands ia terrible idea. No matter how many safety nets a put in place idiots still find a way ot ruin things, it's basic Murphy's Law. Not only that many people have already brought up the issue of the vagueness(even a word?) and a little baised, since many people feel different ways about certain card. Personally, I think that's the largest problem you'll have to overcome to make this idea even remotely viable.

[PunkRocker1134]

First, how would one send an email to him. And if maybe sending an email with adequite test results against DTB would help along with a good arguement of course

Second, if you want a card unbanned, post a list of it and testing results. Maybe a few people could do some of their own then we ,as The Source Communuity, could propose more accurate and logical unbannings.

Third, I know this probably wont happen. Last time it was tried it kinda died after awhile.

[Clark Kant]

Honestly, you guys act like a card getting banned for three months is the end of the world.

So what if legacy players make the "wrong choice" for a couple of months. It's still there game to play. They'll probably still be happy atleast to have been able to try that card out for three months. It's not like any changes will last more than three months.

It's far better to have a dynamic format where people occasionally make the wrong choice for three months, than a format where the DCI is so terrified that they might make the wrong decision and everyone will blame them that they refuse to change anything for years on end.

And honestly, I'm fairly sure that the average Legacy player understands the legacy format as well as an arbitrary organization who by their own admission neither test nor play the format that they regulate.

[edgewalker]

No see people are idiots. Have you looked at the Open forum? Have you looked at America at all? People vote on emotion more than they do on facts or knowledge. I am willing to bet we, and I say we because we'd all get caught in this group, would fuck this up completely. So it gets ruined for 3 months. What is it stays ruined. What if the DCI doesn't wanna change it.

The format is fine, just because you're pet deck sucks doesn't mean the format is stagnet. Maybe, just maybe it sucks. I'd much rather have a select few good decks and a bunch of shitty ones. I mean I look at the open forum and see the worst decks ever dreamed up.(Where the hell are they coming from?) It's those people who piss and moan about the format's condition all because they want they're shitty pet deck to not suck.

And those are the people who you want to control the b/r list. No thanks, things can always get worse and this idea is a good step in that direction.

[Clark Kant]

Did you read the topic. There is another vote every three months. It's not up to the DCI.

If legacy players are happy with the change, it will stick around. If legacy players are happy with the change, then that means they made the right call.

[edgewalker]

"Finally, as a last line of security, it's made clear that while the results of this poll will be strongly indicative of what changes are made to the Banned & Restricted List, but the DCI gets the final call. Just because the majority of people crazy ask that Demonic Tutor be unbanned"

[Clark Kant]

The DCI would be required to abide by the votes outcome but gets a few blackballs every year if and only if players do something utterly ridiculous, like unban Black Lotus, which once again isn't going to happen, so I don't think the blackballs would ever be used.

Once again for emphasis, the dci ONLY gets to blackball if people unban something utterly ridiculous, like unban BLACK LOTUS.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

"You decide 2007! Assuming that you demonstrate an adequate knowledge to be able to make a decision within certain guidelines, and the decision arrived at can't be one of a number of these decisions which could be a lot of the possible decisions, oh, and it only counts for three months."


Yeah, I'm shitting my pants from excitement already. How do you not see how incredibly uninteresting and boring this idea would be?

[Aggro_zombies]

Once again for emphasis, the dci ONLY gets to blackball if people unban something utterly ridiculous, like unban BLACK LOTUS.
So in other words, we'll let players have a "You Fuck Up the Format!" contest, where everyone who doesn't actually play votes for the best cards in the good decks that trash their Elves/Recycle combo deck...so I guess duals, all of Goblins, all of Solidarity, discard, counterspells (especially Force of Will), all of Thresh, fetchlands, etc. would be banned by the wonderful casual players who have no idea what they're doing and are just voting for the hell of it. Amirite?

Congrats, your plan is about ten million times better than just having a letter campaign to the DCI. And no one cares enough to do that. So your idea is a healthier thing for the format because...?

[TeenieBopper]

I can't believe I almost forgot about this. This is what happened the last time the DCI listened to the masses:


Brain on fire..

Must... lock.. thread...

Ok. Look. I'm only going to say this once. If you have any questions or rebuttals, keep them to yourself.

Oath Sucks. Ok? It's awful. Green is an awful color. Building a control deck around it doesn't make it any better. *see "Druids, Oath of" and "Psychatog" and "Junk, PT" (ok, so junk really isn't a control deck.. well, kinda) Come to think of it, building a combo deck around that color doesn't work too well either. *see "Aluren."

Know why suicide oath was winning in extended back two seasons ago? Extended does not have the following cards: Swords to plowshares, Force of Will. Believe it or not, those cards are powerful enough to be a constant presence in any metagame with the card pool they are legal in. In fact, you may play against those very cards in the next tournament you play in. Or you may even play them yourself. I need a /sarcasm tag really badly.

If you want to play the game where I name a combo, then you name one that stops it, then I name another one.. make a different thread. However, this point counterpoint thing is fucking pointless. Benzo would be moderately playable with entomb. In fact, I would probably play it. I recieve unhealthy pleasure from reanimating fatties. However, if you check my whole existance-of-cards-that-would-slightly-affect-the-extended-metagame-if-they-were-legal arguement above, you will notice that sometimes a big ass fatty isn't that hard to deal with. Also, Tormod's crypt isn't avalable to play in extended. You know, those things you have because you didn't want to lose to Dragon (yet you did anyhow, didn't you?)

Please stop drawing conjecture from extended. It's different cardpools. Ok? We're still more like type 1 than extended. Another thing: The bannings of replenish, skullclamp, etc just because they were banned in extended. Not too bringht. They missed survival of the goddamn fittest. No worries though, it's not like anyone played those cards in old 1.5 anyhow.

This brings us full circle to Oath of Druids, and the fact that green sucks. I know an aggro deck can't handle a turn 2 fatty. Know what? That aggro deck is probably playing green. They weren't going to win anyhow.

Mind twist is a very swingy card. In the absence of good acceleration, it's not that great turn 1. However, turn 4, it empties your opponent's hand. That's pretty frickin' swingy. Of course, this depends on your matchup. I know you aren't playing mind twist in suicide. Why? Because I know you aren't playing suicide. You are a better magic player than that. So I know you didn't just compare mind twist to hymn to tourach. While hymn to tourach is actually more cost effective than a mind twist, Mind Twist happens to be infinately splashable for such a devistating effect.

Metalworker is fine. Metalworker in the current card pool is at just about the right power level for the format. After all, goblin lacky is still legal. Guess what, it's also an artifact and a creature.

I refuse to comment on the very specualtion that a "broken replenish" deck exists. I believe that to be an oxymoron. If by boken you mean "slow and disruptable" then.. nevermind.

In conclusion,

- Discussing B/R changes just make you look dumb. It makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. I might have a thousand or more mistakes in what I have written above. I most likely do not.

- I blame people who discuss B/R changes like they are smarter than R&D for the change and seperation of the lists. You may be smarter than R&D. That's ok, so is my toaster. Just don't do it. Ok? Don't.

- Green sucks.


P.S.- Yes, I'm still bitter.

[TorpidNinja]

Once again for emphasis, the dci ONLY gets to blackball if people unban something utterly ridiculous, like unban BLACK LOTUS.

So the DCI gets to define what's "utterly ridiculous" (the current banned list) behind closed doors and that counts as a veto.

On the other hand, if people are sufficiently whiny en masse then less powerful cards can be arbitrarily banned.

So the format gets, um, worse?

The way that you stimulate a format is to give people incentive to buy cards rather than better alternatives. That means throwing fat stacks o' cash into the mix with some level of consistency (this could include items which can be sold for said fat stacks like special promo cards that store value in the environment.) Why do you see small, independent, collectible games failing or struggling with only a passive malaise? Because there's no "real" gain to be achieved by winning other than bragging rights (and, really, to whom?)

Ask yourself, why do people (re: skilled players) gravitate from Magic to Texas Hold 'em? Because they're not trying to stimulate interest with new rules and other such tripe, they're making a very easy equation for skilled people: practice + brains = fat stacks o' cash.

@ TeenieBopper: Who wrote that post you quoted? And how long ago?

[Nightmare]

Mike (Teeniebopper) wrote it after the major 1.5->Legacy split.

It is a terrible idea to put the banned list in the hands of the players. I can't see why you don't understand that, Clark_Kant. You're argument is, "If they screw it up, then they can fix it in 3 months." Everyone else's argument is, "They screwed it up, we know they'll screw it up, so why bother letting them screw it up?" Which is a much more compelling argument. You claim the format is stagnant. I claim you have no idea what you're talking about. You either play the same deck continually (and lose, or you wouldn't be complaining), or have tried a few other decks in the recent past, and now have given up. Either way, I couldn't give less of a shit whether or not you personally think Legacy is boring. In the last three months, two separate highly competitive decks have broken through - UBW Fish and TES - and yet we're left with bannings as the only way to stir the format. It's your own lack of creativity, not the DCI, that is the root of your issue. I say "your" issue, because this is the first whining I've heard in months.

Nothing personal, I just hate this argument.

[Clark Kant]

Why are people generally so resistent to any sort of change? I'm glad you brought up the legacy split, because this same resistence to any sort of change is exactly what I saw back then too. The split was a change that the majority of people wanted, but that the "veterans" nevertheless convinced themsleves is a bad thing. If it's what the majority of players want, then obviously it must be a bad thing.

The majority of people, especially those who would bother to learn enough about legacy and jump through all those hoops just to be able to vote, don't want to do ridiculous things that's going to screw up the game. They don't want to f up the format they play. And they know what they are doing. They want to make more decks viable, not less. That's exactly what the split it, and that's exactly what players having more of a say in the format's list will do.

The majority of legacy players give more of a crap about legacy than the DCI does. If you're willing to convince yourself that more than half the people who play legacy are complete idiots, fine, but don't expect me to buy into that argument.

The dci's fear of making any sort of change to the format, of unbanning any of the perfectly balanced cards currently banned from the format, for fear of making a mistake that they will be blamed for. It's the dci's inability to try changes like banning Goblin Ringleader for a little while to see if tournament attendence will pick up, if more decks will surface, that's whats holding us back. The DCI by there own admission don't even play legacy. And they take soooo much flak anytime they make any sort of change to the list, and even more when they have to change it back.

Of course they're just going to say screw it, Legacy, a format that doesnt' generate any actual revenue for them, a format they admittedly know next to nothing about, isn't worth risking all this flak to try any sort of positive change to the list.

[Nightmare]

If it's what the majority of players want, then why obviously it must be a bad thing.What makes you think you know what the majority of Legacy players want? Who are you to speak for the majority? You seem to forget that the ACTUAL majority of people who play Legacy don't read The Source, don't read The Mana Drain, and don't have a goddamn clue what the format's "Best decks" are. Whether you want to believe that or not, it's the truth, and your questionaire will eliminate them from having a say in the banned list. Let's say by some miracle that group of people get to vote. Any idea on the number 1 card to get banned will be? I can assure you it won't start with "Goblin." Force of Will will be out, and for the next 3 months, Combo will be utterly unstoppable. This is not Chicken Little thinking, here, this is a guarantee. The casual player hates counterspells (and Force especially) more than any other aspect of the game. I guarantee it's the first card to go. So again, your method doesn't solve the issue you're looking for it to solve.


The majority of people, especially those who would bother to learn enough about legacy and jump through all those hoops just to be able to vote, don't want to do ridiculous things that's going to screw up the game. They don't want to f up the format they play.I'll agree with you up to this point.


And they know what they are doing.This is where we begin to disagree.

They want to make more decks viable, not less.WRONG. They want to make THEIR deck more viable. There is a huge difference in that one word. If their deck has trouble dealing with turn 1 Lackey, they vote it out. If they scoop to Force, ban it. If they can't beat Solidarity, Reset gets nuked. These are the changes you're supporting. You have a very idealistic view on how people would be voting, but I assure you it would follow my guidelines much more than yours.


The majority of legacy players give more of a crap about legacy than the DCI does. If you're willing to convince yourself that more than half the people who play legacy are complete idiots, fine, but don't expect me to buy into that argument.No one is calling the players idiots. I'm saying that they don't have nearly as good a grasp on what makes a healthy format as they believe they do. I'm also not willing to let them learn by trial and error. Believe what you want, but there it is.


The dci's fear of making any sort of change to the format, of unbanning any of the perfectly balanced cards currently banned from the format, for fear of making a mistake that they will be blamed for. It's the dci's inability to try changes like banning Goblin Ringleader for a little while to see if tournament attendence will pick up, if more decks will surface, that's whats holding us back. The DCI by there own admission don't even play legacy. And they take soooo much flak anytime they make any sort of change to the list, and even more when they have to change it back. It's easy to blame the DCI for the supposed stagnancy of the format. On the other hand, you could take some responsibility for the format you claim to know so much about (within the guidlines given to you by our "governing body"), and create some new decks, or test some decks others have built, or write letters to Forsythe. Instead, you'll shout "Damn the Man!" on a messageboard, and solve nothing.


Of course they're just going to say screw it, Legacy, a format that doesnt' generate any actual revenue for them, a format they admittedly know next to nothing about, isn't worth risking all this flak to try any sort of positive change to the list.Positive by your definition. Unneeded by mine.

[Clark Kant]

I don't understand your stance.

On one hand, you are concerned that random scrubs who don't understand and who barely play the format will mess it up by banning Force of Will because they lose to them. That's a pretty big reach IMHO, saying that over 50% of people will vote to ban force. I have yet to hear a single person, including casual players who do play Elves, ever say Force (or actually anything off the wall) as a card they would want to ban if they could ban cards. Nor have I heard this anywhere on any forum, any poll any site. So where exactly are you getting your claim that such a scenario is even plausible in the first place.

On the other hand, you claim that the major problem with this proposal is that only people who really delve deeply into the format or read the source or starcitygames or play in tournaments or in one way are another familiar with the format itself, will get to vote due to the questions that screen the other people out. Once again, I see that as a strength, not a weakness. There are lots of legacy players who play with and against multitudes of decks, who are exposed better to the format, on a more regular basis than I suspect most members of the DCI. They spend more time with the format and have more at stake than anyone. That's precisely who I want voting on the banned list. How can you not admit that this is a step above an organization that by their own admission doesn't play or keep track of the format other than the occasional GP results, who can't even offer up a halfway decent explanation when they do ban cards. Go read the blurb following every banning in Legacy and Vintage in the past five years, Entomb is a good start. I agree with the cards that got banned, but it's very clear that the DCI, just knew that everyone seemed to want them banned, but didn't understand why they needed to be banned themselves if you read their explanations.

And your claims that I am personally responsible for the stagnation of this format because I am refusing to innovate it are getting tedious. Go read the Pox thread, or the Black Stompy thread I proposed, or any of the other threads for rogue decks that I contribute to.

[Nightmare]

Addressing things one at a time,

On one hand, you are concerned that random scrubs who don't understand and who barely play the format will mess it up by banning Force of Will because they lose to them. That's a pretty big reach IMHO, saying that over 50% of people will vote to ban force. I have yet to hear a single person, including casual players who do play Elves, ever say Force (or actually anything off the wall) as a card they would want to ban if they could ban cards. Nor have I heard this anywhere on any forum, any poll any site. So where exactly are you getting your claim that such a scenario is even plausible in the first place.Without getting too in-depth on the difference between the casual player mindset and the tournament player mindset, I can simply say that more than any other card, I've heard the casual legacy players complain about counterspells. Given the opportunity to do so, I believe they would attempt to ban the card. Whether this would be an option on the banning list or not is, of course, up to the DCI, unless you are proposing they have another vote for what cards should be up for vote. You seem to be pretty opposed to the DCI having any control over the banned list, so it's possible.

Perhaps the root of this disagreement is that we both have a different frame of reference on the "majority" opinion.


On the other hand, you claim that the major problem with this proposal is that only people who really delve deeply into the format or read the source or starcitygames or play in tournaments or in one way are another familiar with the format itself, will get to vote due to the questions that screen the other people out. Once again, I see that as a strength, not a weakness.If you are attempting to garner a benefit to the format, then it's a mistake to see this as a benefit. Again, by limiting access to the voting process, you're catering to a minority, rather than the majority. This has never, in the history of voting, been an ideal way to perform a ballot.

There are lots of legacy players who play with and against multitudes of decks, who are exposed better to the format, on a more regular basis than I suspect most members of the DCI. They spend more time with the format and have more at stake than anyone. That's precisely who I want voting on the banned list. How can you not admit that this is a step above an organization that by their own admission doesn't play or keep track of the format other than the occasional GP results, who can't even offer up a halfway decent explanation when they do ban cards.In theory, I agree. In practice, it won't work the way you are expecting it to. Perhaps the better idea is to try and inform the members of the DCI to the actual state of the format, rather than to usurp them. You haven't even considered that option, you'd rather rebel.


Go read the blurb following every banning in Legacy and Vintage in the past five years, Entomb is a good start. I agree with the cards that got banned, but it's very clear that the DCI, just knew that everyone seemed to want them banned, but didn't understand why they needed to be banned themselves if you read their explanations.The two have the same effective end product. Whether the DCI members play Legacy or not is irrelevant, as long as they listen to those who do. They do this, if approached in a rational, coherent manner.

[Clark Kant]

Please read my proposal, it was made pretty clear that the DCI puts up the lists of cards to be voted on.

Even if for some reason they do put FoW on the list. There is zero basis for your claims that Force of Will would get banned, that of a group of people who are actually familiar with legacy, 51% of them would vote to ban that card is beyond absurd. In fact, if this system gets implemented and Force of Will does get banned, I will personally send you all 12 of my FoWs. Happy. :)

As for the prequisite of having to be familiar enough with the format to get to vote on the banned list, once again. If someone cares enough to want a vote on the banned list, then it's their duty to learn a little bit about the format they're voting on. It sure is a much smaller of a hurdle to cross than most elections, where you are required to register months before hand, figure out where you're supposed to show up, wait in line several hours, acquire and present an ID etc. Atleast with this system, the minor hurdle actually makes sense.

And irrespectively, even if you don't feel that it's ideal, how could you argue that it's inferior to a system where an arbitrary organization that doesn't even participate in, is effected by or even understand the impact of their decisions. Letting them vote, entirely basing their decision on ancedotal evidence such as random emails they might stumble across, rather than actual experience and playtime in the format is somehow better? How can you argue that whether the people who vote play the format or not is irrelevent. It's about the most relevent requirement there could be for anyone given such a position, to be one of a dozen people or so who get to make decisions that effect millions of players.

[Nightmare]

Reread my proposal, it was pretty clear that the DCI put up the lists of cards to be voted on.You missed my point. You're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt enough to let them decide what broad group of cards have the potential to be banned, but not to make the actual decision themselves. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they know enough to make the decision, or they don't.


Even if for some reason they do put it on the list. There is zero basis for your claims that Force of Will would get banned, that of a group of people who are actually familiar with legacy, 51% of them would vote to ban that card is beyond absurd. In fact, if this system gets implemented and Force of Will does get banned, I will personally send you all 12 of my FoWs. Happy.Believing you'd need a 51% vote to get a card banned is a fallacy. I'd say with a large enough pool of players voting, and a large enough pool of cards to vote on, you could see a large portion of the banned list go away if you need an actual majority to ban cards. Again, you think this is good to "stir up" the format. I disagree.


As for the prequisite of having to be familiar enough with the format to get to vote on the banned list, once again. If someone cares enough to want a vote, then it's their duty to learn a little bit about the format they're voting on.Come on, who are you kidding? Haven't the most recent presidential elections proven that given the choice, most people would make a blind decision based on who had better commercials, rather than put in the effort to make an informed decision? The answers to the entry quesions would be on the internet like 10 seconds after they're posted. That's simply not enough of an effective barrier for me to be convinced that the right people are deciding the list. To me, that means maintaining the Status Quo.


And irrespectively, even if you don't feel that it's ideal, how could you argue that it's inferior to a system where an arbitrary organization that doesn't even participate in, is effected by or even understand the impact of their decisions. Letting them vote, entirely basing their decision on ancedotal evidence such as random emails they might stumble across, rather than actual experience and playtime in the format is somehow better? How? How can you argue that whether the people who vote play the format or not is irrelevent. It's about the most relevent requirement there could be for anyone to make such a decision.Where is your evidence that they arbitrarily decide? They've been doing their job for the last 10+ years, I fail to see how they are suddenly so off base as to circumvent their authority.

[Tacosnape]

First of all, this whole concept is a horrible and stupid idea. Most non-legacy players would have High Tide, Lackey, Vial, and Force banned before anyone could breathe. Then a few Legacy players would have several broken cards back in, and the format would quickly degenerate into crap. Very few people have a decent idea what should be taken out / brought back in, and I would certainly rather let the DCI keep things as they are now rather than let the majority of people whose opinions I have no respect for slaughter the format.

The Banned and Restricted list is fine. Nobody ever says "Oh, I don't play Legacy because ____ is banned or ____ is legal," possibly excluding Lackey and Vial, and that's mostly because a lot of people would rather whine than devise a way to beat Goblins. The format is healthy and continuously evolving as we keep getting solid gems in future sets like Serra Avenger and Extirpate and so on. Every day we have people on the source posting new and interesting decks, furthering the advancement of the format.

The lack of support for Legacy, aside from the DCI/Wizards aspect (which is all monetary, harsh reality), is based on the fact that most newer players don't want to go through the hassle of playing it. It requires finding cards long out of print and often unavailable at local card shops, it can often be expensive for certain decks, and a lot of players, especially younger ones, don't/won't/can't go on ebay and pick them up. I think Wizards did a lot to help promote the format by letting some various 1.5 playable cards be Timeshifted into Time Spiral, as well as the reprinting of things like STP and a few others in Coldsnap decks.

It's also a very challenging and skill-intensive format, and most younger/newer players aren't good enough to play it. I can beat Goblins with Zenigata, my B/G Madness-Survival deck, a high portion of the time, even against a good Goblin player. If I hand it to a lesser player against that same Goblin player, they can't.

So it's pretty much up to us to boost the Legacy community. Here's what you can do. Help people get the cards they need for decks. If my friends give me the money, I'll get them the cards online. It's a little bit of a hassle, but it saves someone from quitting the format after failing to finish a deck for too long. Teach people what you know about the format. Show them how to watch their manabase to make sure they can get that Plague down against Goblins. Also, if you've ever run tournaments, talk with some of the people on here or other places who organize large Legacy tournaments with big prizes and get an idea how to throw one yourself.

The biggest support for Legacy has to come from us.

EDIT: You know what? Just to prove a point, I'm going to go ask 15-20 people I know who range from Legacy adepts to people who dabble in it sometimes and see what they think should be banned/unbanned. I'll have the results soon.

[Maldur Sven Vedukor]

It's hard to discuss what cards should be banned/unbanned. I'd like to see vampiric tutor and replenish unbanned, and aether vial and wasteland banned. But i'm not the correct person to decide this.

Also I've defeated various times goblins and solidarity with a wake deck. I say this because wake is rarely played in legacy.

[Aggro_zombies]

It's hard to discuss what cards should be banned/unbanned. I'd like to see vampiric tutor and replenish unbanned, and aether vial and wasteland banned. But i'm not the correct person to decide this.

Also I've defeated various times goblins and solidarity with a wake deck. I say this because wake is rarely played in legacy.
Uh...you realize that unbanning Vampiric Tutor would be a godsend for blackstorm.deck? Any deck running black, blue, and Tendrils of Agony would shit its pants if this were unbanned. Hell, the deck doesn't even need blue, you just do this EOT on your opponent's turn and then go to town on them during your main phase. GG.

Replenish, though, seems okay.

EDIT: Also, thank you for proving the point that has been made several times in this thread. A winner is you.

[Bryant Cook]

With Vampiric Tutor in TES, I'd think I'd bust a nut or a load all over the format. I pray to god Wizards reads your post.

[emidln]

If you unban Bazaar and/or Mind Twist I'd be more than happy to concede Vampiric Tutor. Who needs to worry about combo when turn 1 trinisphere, turn 2 Twist for 3-4 loops over their head?

[Tacosnape]

Replenish, though, seems okay.

It's not.

Maybe if there was like an Enchantment that worked like Humility, only for Enchantments. Then the Rules Thread would be even -more- active.


If you unban Bazaar and/or Mind Twist I'd be more than happy to concede Vampiric Tutor. Who needs to worry about combo when turn 1 trinisphere, turn 2 Twist for 3-4 loops over their head?

Or we could just, you know, leave them all banned. Or unban Time Walk, since obviously it can't compete with tech like that.:cool:

[Cait_Sith]

Bannings are there for a reason. Evidence? Every quality tutor in Vintage is restricted. Unbanning even one card can warp the format.

[C.P.]

It's not.

Maybe if there was like an Enchantment that worked like Humility, only for Enchantments. Then the Rules Thread would be even -more- active.



Or we could just, you know, leave them all banned. Or unban Time Walk, since obviously it can't compete with tech like that.:cool:

Replenish is a fine card. It is 4cc, needs graveyard to work, and is white. It is no more broken than Ill-gotten-gains. I do remember the times when the deck dealt 21 dmg on turn 3, but there are lots of decks like that in the format. Things like the consultation or Frantic search is not even around to make it broken. What is there to fear? People just think of the times that it was broken and refuse to give it a second chance in a different format. It was not even good in old 1.5.




About the suggestion about how banned list should be decided, the idea is the fastest way of ruining the format. Have you seen some people who claims to know the format? They say Lackey and Vial is ruining the format. They say the format is not diverse. And what the hell do they play? Some netdecked Gobbo/Thresh/Solidarity? We legacy players have the most diverse card pool in the whole Magic world(vintage does not count since its power level restricts itself) and just how many decks in the format is unique to legacy?

(I know this is a blanket statement. But I'm just talking about the deck that are commonly there in major tourney. My point is that the format is still hugely Dependant on old extended and most people are refusing to play something different)

Almost all the voices for banning are from those people. They randomly netdeck or bring their casual decks, and refuse to admit that they are not giving enough effort. If they get the control of the format, the legacy will the most boring format in the world.




Regarding the banning: I know this is not the place to say it, but I personally think the format is healthy. But I think we could used some unbanned cards. Land tax and replenish is overrated, and people fear these cards more than needed. People said the ape and specter was too broken. How broken is it now they have both of them in standard?

[Watcher487]

Guys, I think the problem is not really being looked at (Even though Nightmare said it twice). Even though according to places like here and SCG forums, people think the format is stagnant.

Well here is my whole take on this. The format is no where close to stagnant. Decent decks (Tier 2 and Tier 1.5) are coming out of the wood-works at such a pace that it makes Extended and even Standard look stagnant. So why do people think this format is stagnant? Easy, no one talks about anything other than Threshold, Goblins and Solidarity. Instead of someone saying "How is your Combo match-up?", you get "How is your Solidarity match-up?". The thing that people seem to forget is that there are probably 10-20 different decks that could consistantly beat 2 out of 3 of the Tier 1 decks in this format as it currently stands. If the format was currently stagnant, it would be something akin to how Mirridon Block was in Standard.

[calosso]

Guys, I think the problem is not really being looked at (Even though Nightmare said it twice). Even though according to places like here and SCG forums, people think the format is stagnant.

Well here is my whole take on this. The format is no where close to stagnant. Decent decks (Tier 2 and Tier 1.5) are coming out of the wood-works at such a pace that it makes Extended and even Standard look stagnant. So why do people think this format is stagnant? Easy, no one talks about anything other than Threshold, Goblins and Solidarity. Instead of someone saying "How is your Combo match-up?", you get "How is your Solidarity match-up?". The thing that people seem to forget is that there are probably 10-20 different decks that could consistantly beat 2 out of 3 of the Tier 1 decks in this format as it currently stands. If the format was currently stagnant, it would be something akin to how Mirridon Block was in Standard.

What are you talking about? The format is at a standstill if u compare it to extended and standard. The main difference between the formats are the amount of people and pro players that try to compete, and innovate in this format. I am guessing there will be new decks popping up by pro's who are trying to win an easy GP like Dead guy.

[Complete_Jank]

My friend is telling me that you ripped off his thread he had posted about this topic on Star City?

[Nightmare]

What are you talking about? The format is at a standstill if u compare it to extended and standard. The main difference between the formats are the amount of people and pro players that try to compete, and innovate in this format. I am guessing there will be new decks popping up by pro's who are trying to win an easy GP like Dead guy.Of course it's stagnant if you compare it to Standard and Extended. Standard just effectively doubled its card pool, new decks HAVE to pop up quickly. Extended is a flux because the new sets have such an impact on the format. In Legacy, the power level is a higher one, and it isn't as easy for new decks to shine. The difference isn't pro involvement, its the size of the goddamn cardpool.

[MattH]

With Vampiric Tutor in TES, I'd think I'd bust a nut or a load all over the format. I pray to god Wizards reads your post.
No kidding. Mox Emerald would be less of a godsend.

[Tacosnape]

Of course it's stagnant if you compare it to Standard and Extended. Standard just effectively doubled its card pool, new decks HAVE to pop up quickly. Extended is a flux because the new sets have such an impact on the format. In Legacy, the power level is a higher one, and it isn't as easy for new decks to shine. The difference isn't pro involvement, its the size of the goddamn cardpool.

QFT. Mr. Nightmare seems to have a firm grasp on this thing called common sense which slips through a lot of our fingers.

[Maldur Sven Vedukor]

My friend is telling me that you ripped off his thread he had posted about this topic on Star City?
Maybe it's this
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=296754

[Complete_Jank]

QFT. Mr. Nightmare seems to have a firm grasp on this thing called common sense which slips through a lot of our fingers.

Well at least on this subject, but I think he only has one hand at times.



Maybe it's this
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=296754

I think that is the one he was talking about.

[Clark Kant]

Wow, had I known you guys were going to make stupid accusations, I would have checked the community board sooner.

Read the thread you quoted, or the thread I started on Starcity for godsake.

I explained very clearly the things that were wrong with the original idea and in my reply explained clearly where I got the inspiration for the topic and why it neccesitated a new thread, one with an idea that would strengthen legacy rather than weaken it.

Fine I'll save you some work.

First of all, the list of cards that were singled out, and how they were done so, as well as the cards that weren't singled out is something that virtually no one agreed with.

But far more importantly, starting another format as the author suggested is a really really bad idea for the reasons I already explained in detail over a week ago.

Since the format would be similar to Legacy, all it would do is syphon away Legacy players without getting too much interest from other players, and you can expect it to get even less support from Wizards essentially killing it before it even started, all while actually weakening Legacy in the format.

As long as the thread insisted on singling out cards, and merely fractioning legacy players over two more formats thus greatly weakening legacy in the process, it's not going to generate much support.

[Complete_Jank]

Do you cut and paste all your posts? This is in at least 2 threads.

[Clark Kant]

Because you made the exact same accusation in two threads. If you kept it in the relevent thread, this one, then I wouldn't have to respond to it in two places.

[Maldur Sven Vedukor]

People prefers extended because it has more competitive decks.
When I check legacy forums always I read something related to goblins.
Examples:
"I tested this against goblins..."
"You need this as an answer against 1st turn lackey..."
"Goblins will break your manabase..."
"This would win against goblins?"

Extended has no wasteland, no vial and no lackey, then it's a format with more options than legacy, with fewer cards.

I don't want all the three cards be banned, but any of these should be banned (i'd say vial).

Vial is more difficult to remove than lackey. It makes control decks less viable. Vial should be banned rather than lackey. Even wasteland should be banned rather than lackey.

[Goblin Snowman]

People prefers extended because it has more competitive decks.
When I check legacy forums always I read something related to goblins.
Examples:
"I tested this against goblins..."
"You need this as an answer against 1st turn lackey..."
"Goblins will break your manabase..."
"This would win against goblins?"

Extended has no wasteland, no vial and no lackey, then it's a format with more options than legacy, with fewer cards.

I don't want all the three cards be banned, but any of these should be banned (i'd say vial).

Vial is more difficult to remove than lackey. It makes control decks less viable. Vial should be banned rather than lackey. Even wasteland should be banned rather than lackey.

So what if it makes Control less viable? Which it doesn't, I have no problem Deeding away Vial. It makes Counter-Based control less viable, but that just means it's not the right call at the moment. No one will play Keeper in T1 any more, is that a bad thing? No, saying we need to weaken Goblins and any other deck with Vial because I want my pet deck to work is wrong. The format's plenty diverse, we have way more randomness than anything else due to the amount of cards around. For banning Wasteland, no, since it does way, way more than just be in Goblins. Half the format plays with Wasteland.

[Maldur Sven Vedukor]

We need weakening goblins to make all other decks more viable. Maybe wasteland shouldn't be banned. Vial gives an enormous advantage to goblins. But why I hate vial bit i don't hate lackey? It's because 1st turn lackey can easily answered, but 1st turn vial don't. Vial gives instant speed and unconterability to creatures, but lackey is more hard to use.

Vial is problematic because there are only narrow answers to. Lackey, while way faster, is more situational and more easily dealt with using cards that have good uses in other matchups.


Goblins is fast, solid, has mana denial, has instant speed, can play uncounterable creatures, can play manaless creatures and is relatively cheap.
That's why goblins is the most played deck, and that's why I hate goblins.

Every topic about building a deck says anything related to goblins.

[Goblin Snowman]

We need weakening goblins to make all other decks more viable. Maybe wasteland shouldn't be banned. Vial gives an enormous advantage to goblins. But why I hate vial bit i don't hate lackey? It's because 1st turn lackey can easily answered, but 1st turn vial don't. Vial gives instant speed and unconterability to creatures, but lackey is more hard to use.

Vial is problematic because there are only narrow answers to. Lackey, while way faster, is more situational and more easily dealt with using cards that have good uses in other matchups.


Goblins is fast, solid, has mana denial, has instant speed, can play uncounterable creatures, can play manaless creatures and is relatively cheap.
That's why goblins is the most played deck, and that's why I hate goblins.

Every topic about building a deck says anything related to goblins.

Because it's good? Listen, I can whine about Deck X beating my deck all day long, and it won't help. If you have a problem beating Goblins, maybe instead of trying to change the entire metagame of Legacy, you should be working on ways to improve your MU or play a different deck.

Just because your pet deck cannot beat Goblins does not mean Goblins should be nerfed!

It's our format defining deck because it happens to be good, but not too good to get pieces of it banned. If I said that Ichorid should be banned because a clunky control deck can't beat it, I'd be totally ignored, as I should be.

[Maldur Sven Vedukor]

I'm not having problems with goblins now. My deck is a Wake, and I beated goblins many times with it, and it can fight against other decks. I'm still improving it, but that's not the case. I'm not a MUC or Landstill player. But that's not the point.

I'm talking about lots of decks that would be competitive if goblins were not broken...

I didn't mean goblins is unbeatable, but people sacrifices other matchups only for beating goblins. Goblins hate eats lots of card slots that may be used against other decks.

Why extended has more variety with fewer cards? Because there isn't a stagnant deck. There's a reason about why vial is banned.

I wouldn't like to kill the goblins deck, and that's why i don't agree with banning lackey . Without vial the deck would still be playable, and very good, but also other decks would be competitive.


Vial is the only card really I'd like to see banned. And i don't want to unban nothing now.

About wasteland, my deck runs it.

If I said this because I want my deck work better, I'd rather say replenish should be unbanned. But i have no interest about unbanning replenish now.

[Goblin Snowman]

List off how many playable extended decks there are, right now. I'm willing to bet you can to it on one hand. You can expect roughly 1/2 of a metagame is going to be predictable, the rest is a crapshot unless you have knowladge before hand. That's pretty diverse, in my opinion.

Your points seem to be that;
1) Aether Vial stops some decks from seeing play.
Well, then they aren't competitive decks. If a deck can't deal with a metagame, you don't change the metagame, you change the deck.

2) Legacy is stagnent.
No, Legacy is the most diverse format. Go the the Open forum, every deck in there is capable of winning a GP (well, most of them).

CounterSliver, MUC, Wombat, Burn, Stax, Affinity, Deadguy, Red Death, Iggy Pop, TES, the list goes on and on and on. Yeah, I guess having 50+ playable decks is pretty stagnent.

[Maldur Sven Vedukor]

The problem isn't improving my deck. As i said I've beaten goblins, solidarity and threshold with a confinement-wake deck. I can destroy vial with the same card I destroy mongoose.

Yes the decks you said are playable.
I always want new deck ideas, and if i can, i help to do improve these decks.

I won't discuss why I think vial should be banned.

I didn't discuss this to improve my deck. It was in a general metagame.

For me goblins isn't a hard matchup, threshold is harder for me.

[Goblin Snowman]

I get that. It's not about your deck. I understood that and haven't remotely mentioned that since you told me that's not what it's about.

"Why extended has more variety with fewer cards?"

This is not true, Legacy has more playable decks than any other format.

"I'm talking about lots of decks that would be competitive if goblins were not broken..."

Just like how Rifter would be dominating if Solidarity wasn't broken, but no one saying "Ban Reset!". Too bad Goblins is a good deck.

"I didn't mean goblins is unbeatable, but people sacrifices other matchups only for beating goblins. Goblins hate eats lots of card slots that may be used against other decks."

Yeah, just like how I board the exact amount of hate against Solidarity.

"Every topic about building a deck says anything related to goblins."

Because you have to be able to deal with the deck, just like you have to deal with every other deck.

"People prefers extended because it has more competitive decks."

This is flat out false. Look at how many competitive decks we have.

I'll stop derailing the thread a bit here, this just shows how people will not make well-thought choices, like banning Vial, allowing the meta to radicly shift without a decent aggro deck.