All B/R update speculation.

[Fjaulnir]

Also, the bolded line is literally thoughtsieze. Why does everyone lose it over probe + therapy, but not thoughtsieze?

Except it's not, and it's often 'literally' DoubleThoughtseize (for only 2 life once though), and I've even had it be a TripleThoughtseizeFor2Life.

Does this look like a fine new card design?
"B: Target opponent reveals their hand. Choose as many cards as you choose with the same name, then that player discards that card. You lose 2 life and the next Delve spell you cast costs less.

When this card is in your deck, you can register a 56 card deck.

Flashback: Sacrifice a creature, ~, you don't lose 2 life."

I'd play that over Thoughtseize any day


If they blind Therapy me and hit 2-3 cards, I just laugh it off and praise their skill in naming cards that I'm likely to have and I won't be more than 2% salty at most. If they Probe-Therapy into a 2/3-for-1, I'd ragequit every single time if i wasn't too attached to winning that I'd still try to get that 10% chance that I'm still winning that game.



PS and I don't think 'just don't ever keep hands that have 2-3'offs' is a good answer

[ahg113]

I fully agree with you taconaut.

Folks are more beat out of shape about it being a phyrexian mana than the actual effect of the card. No one complains about Peek, but heaven forbid Legacy had to swap Brainstorm for Portent.

With the color pie experiencing a lot of creep, most of it in Blue's favor, it's amusing that a blue card can be well utilized in non-blue shells and folks get upset.

[taconaut]

PS and I don't think 'just don't ever keep hands that have 2-3'offs' is a good answer

Not in for Highlander, huh? I heard it was actually a pretty cool format

Except it's not, and it's often 'literally' DoubleThoughtseize (for only 2 life once though), and I've even had it be a TripleThoughtseizeFor2Life.

Does this look like a fine new card design?
"B: Target opponent reveals their hand. Choose as many cards as you choose with the same name, then that player discards that card. You lose 2 life and the next Delve spell you cast costs less. this is functionally different, because it would make a delve spell actually cost two less, right?

When this card is in your deck, you can register a 56 card deck.

Flashback: Sacrifice a creature, ~, you don't lose 2 life." you do need a creature to sacrifice, though.

I'd play that over Thoughtseize any day

If they blind Therapy me and hit 2-3 cards, I just laugh it off and praise their skill in naming cards that I'm likely to have and I won't be more than 2% salty at most. If they Probe-Therapy into a 2/3-for-1, I'd ragequit every single time if i wasn't too attached to winning that I'd still try to get that 10% chance that I'm still winning that game.

I think this has some truth to it, and I understand that there are some small differences that can be relevant (like the multiple cards scenarios), but still, no one has addressed the fact that at some level, the base case is a Thoughtseize. Here, it sounds like the card you have an issue with is Cabal Therapy.

A lot of the time, when I'm therapying someone, I'm just naming whatever I can't beat anyway - if you have it, great, one obstacle down for me; if you don't, great, that was the thing I couldn't beat. Thoughtseize always hits whatever is relevant in their hand (except for Brainstorm scenarios, but I think that's a separate discussion from Probe and doesn't change for therapy), so why doesn't it bother people? I'm not trying to trick people into answering in some way to corner them, I just genuinely could not care even a little bit about my opponent Gitaxian Probing me.

[Fox]

For instance, Go and Chess have perfect information, and no one is asserting that Chess grandmasters lack skill. [1]

The point I was making there, is just that "taking risks" isn't any more inherently skillful - if some guy is the Maverick player or something and he's mad that his ANT opponent gets to probe him and see a mitt full of green cards that don't do anything and then they just kill him, it's not probe's fault for letting them know that, it's on Maverick guy for hoping that having unknown cards in hand is some kind of defense. [2]

What if they just made the correct decisions without probing you? [3]

Again, the information is perfect for a turn at most. Also, the bolded line is literally thoughtsieze. Why does everyone lose it over probe + therapy, but not thoughtsieze? If all these people playing Probe + Therapy are secretly scrubs that would have no idea what to name if not for their cantrip, then what are they doing in all of the games where they don't draw probe and therapy together in their opener? Surely that would offset some of the percentage they gain from the ones where they do get to look, and they'd be better off with Thoughtsieze, right? [4]

Probe makes games more interactive, not less, because of the dynamic you're describing - if I know what I need to play around/have to beat, I have to make an effort to counteract it. Grixis delver is fundamentally interactive, that's one of the reasons many skillful players are drawn to it, and if you want to take probe away to stop them from planning their turns, it's not that you want more interaction, it's that you want them to have to guess at what you have. [5]

I think the last sentence is a great example of why Probe shouldn't be banned - if it's not in every deck, and matters differently for the decks that do employ it, is it really oppressive? [6]

If that's the case, why doesn't Miracles play Probe? [7]

You already acknowledged that there are deck-specific reasons to use one or the other, and not every blue deck plays Probe, implying that the card is powerful and flexible, but not format-warping, and therefore not banworthy. [8]

[1] Both players have perfect information, not one.
[2] Going all-in blindly isn't an insignificant risk; if you do this you will not make deep tournament runs on a consistent basis.
[3] It would mean that we were playing a real game of skill within the framework of variance. At its best Magic is the same as any other game where the person who makes the best decisions should win (rather than luck of the opening hands/draw and luck of the matchup). The intent of Probe is to freely participate in a game where every decision you make is intrinsically more valuable.
[4] A simple scenario would be you went turn 1 fetch -> dual land -> Thoughtseize them and yep, you just lost to Wasteland. Probe's impact begins before a land is played or a fetch is cracked; if you guess wrong you're already committed to the fallout with Thoughtseize.
[5] No, I want them to have the same starting point for decision making, and to have the same risk attached to the making of a decision. Magic doesn't become a better game when someone freely gets access to the best interactive decisions, which are necessarily the best because they make the opponent's interactive decisions worse.
[6] It's not about being oppressive as much as the point of it being to freely create an uneven playing field. It's not just about getting the best line of play & downplaying risk, it's a card waiting to be broken by mechanics like delve. Probe doesn't ruin entire formats like say Counterbalance [enabled] can, but it certainly doesn't make them better.
[7] Because it doesn't work with Terminus, Predict, CB, or any of the reactive control elements? Because it hardly matters [more than a currently slotted card] in a deck that is designed is to answer any strategy in a reactive fashion? There's a laundry list of why it doesn't make a lot of sense; I'm not sure how to answer that other than some decks aren't going to alter their play patterns to an appreciable degree based on a Peek effect??
[8] It's a problematic card in that it's design will never favor a more interactive or fair* game of magic. It is a negative force that can only become more negative - that doesn't mean it must has to be banned, but it will always have to be watched because at its core it represents poor game design/theory.
*fair as in player skill, not "fair deck" strategies.

For the record I think Phyrexian mana could be largely fixed by having these two rules:
-you may not pay life instead of mana for this spell until you have played [as in somehow gotten onto the battlefield] a basic land which could make the appropriate color.
-if you have not had a main phase yet, you may pay life instead of mana without presenting the basic land which makes the appropriate color.

[taconaut]

[1] Both players have perfect information, not one.

I get what you're saying, but then why don't you have probe in Maverick? Based on your other arguments, probe is free and carries no cost to run, and would even out the information asymmetry. Yet, no one (that I know of) does this.

[2] Going all-in blindly isn't an insignificant risk; if you do this you will not make deep tournament runs on a consistent basis.

Agreed, though I think plenty of non-probe decks go deep regularly.

[3] It would mean that we were playing a real game of skill within the framework of variance. At its best Magic is the same as any other game where the person who makes the best decisions should win (rather than luck of the opening hands/draw and luck of the matchup). The intent of Probe is to freely participate in a game where every decision you make is intrinsically more valuable.

Playing probe is part of making the best decisions. It's not possible to both want to play a game where people making the best decisions are rewarded and be mad that probe allows that to happen. If the person is good, they will make many of the right decisions anyway. Any other way of characterizing it is purely variance, not skill ("I want to win even when I don't draw my hate because they didn't know I didn't draw it") Variance and skill are on a spectrum, and reducing variance typically increases skill impact. Gitaxian Probe reduces variance.

[4] A simple scenario would be you went turn 1 fetch -> dual land -> Thoughtseize them and yep, you just lost to Wasteland. Probe's impact begins before a land is played or a fetch is cracked; if you guess wrong you're already committed to the fallout with Thoughtseize.

This is a good point, and I like that you're trying to address my question about what really makes TS any different from CT.

[5] No, I want them to have the same starting point for decision making, and to have the same risk attached to the making of a decision. Magic doesn't become a better game when someone freely gets access to the best interactive decisions, which are necessarily the best because they make the opponent's interactive decisions worse.

This one I can't really dispute, as it's more of a preference. I do get what you're saying though; I've enjoyed plenty of games where I took a risk to go off with ANT and made it, but I'm not sure that's always better...however, everything you do in magic is designed to make your opponents' options worse, so I'm not sure that's relevant.

[6] It's not about being oppressive as much as the point of it being to freely create an uneven playing field. It's not just about getting the best line of play & downplaying risk, it's a card waiting to be broken by mechanics like delve. Probe doesn't ruin entire formats like say Counterbalance [enabled] can, but it certainly doesn't make them better.

I actually didn't mind counterbalance either, but that ship has sailed. I personally think Probe is a sweet card, and acknowledge that many don't, but I'd say probe is neutral at worst.

[7] Because it doesn't work with Terminus, Predict, CB, or any of the reactive control elements? Because it hardly matters [more than a currently slotted card] in a deck that is designed is to answer any strategy in a reactive fashion? There's a laundry list of why it doesn't make a lot of sense; I'm not sure how to answer that other than some decks aren't going to alter their play patterns to an appreciable degree based on a Peek effect??

Right, so you're saying that it's not obviously optimal in many contexts, and there are pros and cons to the text that comes before "draw a card" on a cantrip. I'm asserting that Probe is an interesting twist on it that works for some decks (Storm, Grixis) and doesn't for others (Pile, Miracles). The way some people talk about it makes it sound like every deck should have four, and that's demonstrably not true based on the lists we commonly see (unless we think everyone is just behind the curve and should be playing four, but I doubt it).

[8] It's a problematic card in that it's design will never favor a more interactive or fair* game of magic. It is a negative force that can only become more negative - that doesn't mean it must has to be banned, but it will always have to be watched because at its core it represents poor game design/theory.

It does, though - Probe makes it so that people win fewer games by pretending they have something - if you can't beat them when they probe you, a lot of the time you can't beat them at all, and all the probe does is confirm it. Again, if it were that polarizing a force, everyone would play it (see mental misstep) and that would address issues of fairness, but people don't all play it, so it must not be that broken.

*fair as in player skill, not "fair deck" strategies.

For the record I think Phyrexian mana could be largely fixed by having these two rules:
-you may not pay life instead of mana for this spell until you have played [as in somehow gotten onto the battlefield] a basic land which could make the appropriate color.
-if you have not had a main phase yet, you may pay life instead of mana without presenting the basic land which makes the appropriate color.

I can't really speak to this. I think the constraints here are too complicated, though. Even still, they would more or less not change how I play Probe in Storm at all, so I'm not sure if it would help. I also aggressively fetch basics/play two islands though, so *shrug?*

[Blastoderm]

I think we need a bit more time to see if Deathrite is banworthy or if the meta will correct itself. GP Madrid team trios just finished and there were 3 chalice decks in the top 4 (2x red, 1x eldrazi). While Deathrite is incredibly strong, I'm not in favor of banning stuff every 6 months like Wizards does in Modern because people whine. Hell, the twitch chat was going nuts yesterday during the SCG Modern Open because storm was going off turn 5. It would actually make more sense to UNBAN things, like SotF.

[ahg113]

Except it's not, and it's often 'literally' DoubleThoughtseize (for only 2 life once though), and I've even had it be a TripleThoughtseizeFor2Life.

Does this look like a fine new card design?
"B: Target opponent reveals their hand. Choose as many cards as you choose with the same name, then that player discards that card. You lose 2 life and the next Delve spell you cast costs less.

When this card is in your deck, you can register a 56 card deck.

Flashback: Sacrifice a creature, ~, you don't lose 2 life."

I'd play that over Thoughtseize any day


If they blind Therapy me and hit 2-3 cards, I just laugh it off and praise their skill in naming cards that I'm likely to have and I won't be more than 2% salty at most. If they Probe-Therapy into a 2/3-for-1, I'd ragequit every single time if i wasn't too attached to winning that I'd still try to get that 10% chance that I'm still winning that game.



PS and I don't think 'just don't ever keep hands that have 2-3'offs' is a good answer

That's magic though. As much as the good players and can trip cartel rage against the randomness, sometimes blowouts happen. As a manaless dredge player I accept that sometimes I don't get to play if leyline of the void comes down pre-game. Unless i'm mistaken, lots of people play counterspells, or resistors, and can interup the g.probe/therapy action, or hide cards via b.storm.

The joke about a 56 card deck doesn't sit well for some reason. Something something street wraith/manamorphose/baubles, can trip cartel, etc.

[Phoenix Ignition]

I think we need a bit more time to see if Deathrite is banworthy or if the meta will correct itself. GP Madrid team trios just finished and there were 3 chalice decks in the top 4 (2x red, 1x eldrazi). While Deathrite is incredibly strong, I'm not in favor of banning stuff every 6 months like Wizards does in Modern because people whine. Hell, the twitch chat was going nuts yesterday during the SCG Modern Open because storm was going off turn 5. It would actually make more sense to UNBAN things, like SotF.

Please never use Twitch chat for a barometer of anything reasonable ever. There are literally no Twitch chats that are anything but trolls. Even the Bob Ross Twitch chat just says RUINED all the time when he makes happy little trees.

[ahg113]

Fox
For the record I think Phyrexian mana could be largely fixed by having these two rules:
-you may not pay life instead of mana for this spell until you have played [as in somehow gotten onto the battlefield] a basic land which could make the appropriate color.
-if you have not had a main phase yet, you may pay life instead of mana without presenting the basic land which makes the appropriate color.*

taconaut
I can't really speak to this. I think the constraints here are too complicated, though. Even still, they would more or less not change how I play Probe in Storm at all, so I'm not sure if it would help. I also aggressively fetch basics/play two islands though, so *shrug?*

Quoting on phone more difficult than I thought.

This is lame, a fix akin to making brainstorm sorcery speed. G.probe is a seldom used card, not making belcher, manaless dredge, ruby storm, or x? over powered. Most of these arguments are having your cake and eating it too. Slap down a chalice, use FoW, leyline of sanctity, etc. etc., there are options.

[Fox]

@taconaut [1, 7, 8] the argument for Probe has to be more complex than if it were so good everyone would run it. A deck like maverick could use it to see an axis its opponent intends to interact on, but not actually have any cards its strategy could have employed to interact (like if you see Belcher ready to go off, you're still dead). In miracles it would be unhelpful to see Sylvan Library in their hand if you cut the maindeck CJ for Probe.

[2] When it comes to Delver decks there's no doubt that perfect play, made possible by the information a turn 1 Probe provides, wins a certain %age of legacy games...but on margins as narrow as Delver decks operate, having an interactive spell in place of Probe will provide more win %age when they're unable to gain additive advantage through Probe's pairing with potential 1 mana 2 for 1s (Therapy) and feeding of a delve engine. Speaking just of Delver decks, theory dictates you're more likely to make top8 if your variant can profitably use Probe - gaining perfect info without sacrificing power.

A more polarizing example of deep tournament runs could be made with infect, where one would expect that their winrate increase proportional to how many Probes they saw anytime they 'had it' and an opponent didn't.

[3] Harder to answer this...the unfair part has more to do with near-zero exposure to risk to gain advantage. Probe only really fits into proactive strategies, and you're playing into Chalice & burn on some level, but past that point a Probe player has committed nothing to which an opponent can interact against. It's kind of like playing Backgammon where one player always knows what their opponent's next roll will be - it's not really a healthy aspect of game design, nor is it about making the best decisions.

[5] Making an opponent's options worse is fine, but there should be an expectation that in doing so they have committed resources and in so doing have exposed themselves to risk. It's not what Probe does that offends, it's not even necessarily that it's mana positive (with delve), but the lack of preconditions [i.e. axes of interaction].

@ahg113 from mtgtop8: Gitaxian Probe coming in at 24% making it the 5th most played non-creature spell in legacy. The main decks you need to talk about with Probe (post-DTT ban) are Grixis Delver and ANT. Aside from a Chalice deck which will generally hate on any Probe deck, the suggestions are actively game-losing. Actually tagging on the requirement to 'show me the basic Island' to pay life for Probe not only maintains healthy use of the card, but it also prevents game-ending Probe->Sea->Therapy; particularly before an opponent has even had a chance to begin playing and especially in those games where they mulled into a duplicate nonland. So no, this is nothing like Brainstorm at sorcery speed - a turn 1 Brainstorm does not equal game over for an opponent. It's really important to understand the difference between Brainstorm being a high power card, and Gitaxian Probe not requiring you to have made a choice on land played - that choice is inherently subject to a risk of being interacted with.

[Stevestamopz]

I think if any card is going to go, it will be the stupid Probe.

Gitaxian Probe—Gitaxian Probe increased the number of third-turn kills in a few ways, but particularly by giving perfect information (and a card) to decks that often have to make strategic decisions about going "all-in." This hurt the ability of reactive decks to effectively bluff or for the aggressive deck to miss-sequence their turn. Ultimately, the card did too much for too little cost.

We believe by removing these free draw spells—and the perfect information that comes with Gitaxian Probe—we will significantly weaken Monastery Mentor–based strategies. Hopefully the move away from "free" spells in the Mentor decks will lessen the impact of the Workshop deck's various Sphere of Resistance effects, opening up the metagame.

Of note is that Legacy is currently the only tournament format where we have not taken action against Gitaxian Probe. Currently, the data does not support doing so in that format, and we examine each format individually.

A card that has been banned in Modern and is also restricted in Vintage is obviously quite powerful and it's pretty lolworthy to read people saying otherwise.

More to the point though, people are having a sook about Grixis Delver, and Wizard have demonstrated a willingness to cave to public pressure. Reading between the lines in the 24/04/17 update, they actually name it as a card they're keeping their eye on in Legacy. For all the Show and Tell players out there, what's 1 + 1?

Maybe it won't be banned in the next update, but if this meta-trend continues and more and more decks start adding it as a 4 of I predict it will be banned sooner rather than later. DRS will never be banned, it's a "pillar" of the format now. A bamboo pillar mind, not a classic athenian marble pillar but a pillar nonetheless.

[Hanni]

The fact that there are so many people that feel that something must always be banned is unfortunate. If you ban Deathrite Shaman... guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy. If you ban Gitaxian Probe, guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy.

You can go back to 2006 if you want to, it hasn't changed since Legacy's inception. Cheap efficient threats, cantrips, Force + Daze, cheap removal... it's been a tier 1 strategy for over 12 years.

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

[Ronald Deuce]

The fact that there are so many people that feel that something must always be banned is unfortunate. If you ban Deathrite Shaman... guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy. If you ban Gitaxian Probe, guess what? Delver is still the best deck in Legacy.

You can go back to 2006 if you want to, it hasn't changed since Legacy's inception. Cheap efficient threats, cantrips, Force + Daze, cheap removal... it's been a tier 1 strategy for over 12 years.

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

This.

I get that there are cards that absolutely need banning, but going after shitty targets like Probe and DRS isn't going to change anything.

I'm still not a ban advocate, but how is either of those cards worse for gameplay than a Chalice on 1? How is either of those cards worse for gameplay than Brainstorm (awesome and sine dubio totally valid though that card is)? Show and Tell (a card with built-in outs to itself)?

Banning "the best card" just produces a new "the best card." I'm glad Miracles took a hit—much as I wish they'd hit Counterbalance instead of Top—but that was a ban that addressed a clear, omnipresent problem of a single deck's taking multiple top slots at most tournaments, even when it was using terrible win conditions. (Seriously, stop using stuff that isn't Monastery Mentor. It's getting pretty painful to watch.) How is banning Probe going to stop Thoughtseize decks from using their Therapies well? How is banning Deathrite Shaman going to prevent the very same decks from running Birds? Why would those decks even need Birds to begin with? None of these arguments makes sense. I've (semi-facetiously) suggested banning Delver of Secrets, but I'm not dumb enough to think that would change the U/B Value strategy or make Leovold unplayable or any other similar nonsense.

Bans should keep decks in check, not kill them outright. I'm not sure banning Probe or Deathrite would kill any decks, but why would we ban them if they're nowhere near the top slots? Hell, Delver still delivers more damage than Deathrite and pitches to Force, but people don't complain.

[Hrothgar]

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

Quote for you.
The medium legacy player prefer complain, asking BS/another one blue card or DS ban then use brain to win.

[Megadeus]

I'd be fine with a probe ban. Card is fucking miserable. And it's completely retarded. It's a draw spell that gets perfect info, adds mana and storm, and costs no mana. There's a reason it's banned or restricted in every other format. But Phyrexian mana has proven time and again it's a completely retarded mechanic that should've never been created

[Megadeus]

This.

I get that there are cards that absolutely need banning, but going after shitty targets like Probe and DRS isn't going to change anything.

I'm still not a ban advocate, but how is either of those cards worse for gameplay than a Chalice on 1? How is either of those cards worse for gameplay than Brainstorm (awesome and sine dubio totally valid though that card is)? Show and Tell (a card with built-in outs to itself)?

Banning "the best card" just produces a new "the best card." I'm glad Miracles took a hit—much as I wish they'd hit Counterbalance instead of Top—but that was a ban that addressed a clear, omnipresent problem of a single deck's taking multiple top slots at most tournaments, even when it was using terrible win conditions. (Seriously, stop using stuff that isn't Monastery Mentor. It's getting pretty painful to watch.) How is banning Probe going to stop Thoughtseize decks from using their Therapies well? How is banning Deathrite Shaman going to prevent the very same decks from running Birds? Why would those decks even need Birds to begin with? None of these arguments makes sense. I've (semi-facetiously) suggested banning Delver of Secrets, but I'm not dumb enough to think that would change the U/B Value strategy or make Leovold unplayable or any other similar nonsense.

Bans should keep decks in check, not kill them outright. I'm not sure banning Probe or Deathrite would kill any decks, but why would we ban them if they're nowhere near the top slots? Hell, Delver still delivers more damage than Deathrite and pitches to Force, but people don't complain.

Let's not begin to even pretend that Birds is nearly on the same level as Deathrite

[Hanni]

Let's not begin to even pretend that Birds is nearly on the same level as Deathrite

And lets not pretend that Werebear is nearly on the same level as Tarmogoyf.

[Stevestamopz]

And lets not pretend that Werebear is nearly on the same level as Tarmogoyf.

Who said it was? Am I missing something?

[phg22]

When does the "let's ban the next best card" madness ever end?

If you think this is what's happening blame WotC for the way they've handled modern. Players expect changes at every announcement now; it's absurd.

I'd like more transparency from the actual decision makers. I was surprised Top got the axe when it did simply because the miracle core had been legal in the format for nearly five years. I compare this to Cruise, Dig, and Misstep, and wonder why not sooner. I would be nice if we had more insights on their thoughts on DRS in the format. If the card is a pillar, and arguing to ban it is as much a waste of space as arguing to ban cantrips or fetch lands, fine, but at least make that clear.

The SCG Worcester metagame was troubling. If GP Seattle looks similar, I'd be shocked if WotC takes no action. While I'd love to see TNN go, I imagine they will act on their obvious hate for probe, and/or blame DRS.

[Matsu]

...

The SCG Worcester metagame was troubling. If GP Seattle looks similar, I'd be shocked if WotC takes no action. While I'd love to see TNN go, I imagine they will act on their obvious hate for probe, and/or blame DRS.

Can someone make a new poll before GP Seattle?

Include Probe, DRS, Brainstorm, Fetch, TNN, S&T, Leo, Terminus... I am just curious what the outcome will be.

A new Poll every 2 month which end a week before banning announcement will be great.
If we keep the records of every poll, we will be able to analyse the metagame from a longer perspective. This will give ammo to a constructive discussion based on metagame and people opinion.