All B/R update speculation.

[non-inflammable]

I think that says more about how long you've been active in the Legacy scene than anything else.

1995 long enough for you? I missed getting a 5 digit DCI number because I thought it was just a fad...

I guess it was easier for you to just take a shot at me than appreciate my minor anecdotal evidence, but you knew that.

[Watersaw]

But that's the point!

You can't try and hate on cantrips without making it symmetrical or else 4x Brainstorm decks become 4x Brainstorm & 4x whatever card you're thinking of.
That's the problem with Leo, people play him and the number of Brainstorms hasn't gone down. So what are you solving?

I think people want a way to punish the cantrips without doing even more damage to alternate engines. They want a cheap card that is somehow unplayable alongside Brainstorm, powerful enough to actually see play, all while not disputing non-cantrip filtering. It's a hilariously specific niche that I'm not convinced can actually be filled.
Leo just happens to be the worst of both worlds. Well, Notion Thief too but who plays that.

[non-inflammable]

I would then play painter to name green so my brainstorm gets around it. Broke the format again

but just think of all the amazing interactions that could be done with that and 4x Bounty of the Hunt...

[Phoenix Ignition]

Someone accidently set off PSully on the Banning of DRS.

https://go.twitch.tv/videos/184065868?t=22h42m10s

He's amazing, still.

Wow, thanks for reminding me why I have coverage muted 100% of the time. You have to either be wrong on purpose or not understand the concept of "a group" of people to be that stupid.

People complain about things. People on forums (a group of people, no less) can complain about the exact opposite thing at the same time! It doesn't mean that the same people are complaining about both things. They can even both valid complaints, even though they're talking about the same exact thing from 2 different sides! Okay now that we have numbers of people that are more than 1 settled we can take on his next big point.

People can want cards that are good, but not too good to be printed for their format. Something that's playable, but doesn't make it into 6/8 of the top 8, for example. If no good cards are printed, their want is not satisfied. If a card is printed that needs to go in most decks in the format their want is still not satisfied.

[Ace/Homebrew]

This is suggestible, by variance, but also, improbable. It is foolish to suggest that a random selection of 1 card from his deck would have landed the exact card that would have accomplished the same result. It's also called cherry picking. And to think that someone like Cook would run what, 11 discards main? Yeah, right.

You're right, what I meant was that Cook was going to beat you no matter what.

What sickens me is that this is somehow acceptable in a game that, since its inception, has been about what YOU can do with YOUR ability.

Huh... sounds like scientology...
Let's remember that all sets since Alpha contain cards that are superior to others. It is foolish to suggest that a player's ability on their own is what should determine the outcome of a match. It's also called wishful thinking. A player's ability has only ever been part of the equation.

It is also a positive that a format has decks capable of high performance even when the pilot has low experience. Look at Burn, the concept/execution is simple and the deck is highly affordable. The deck is capable of winning an event even if the pilot has limited experience with the deck or knowledge of the format. The beauty of the game is that a player who has experience with the deck and knowledge of the format is rewarded with opportunities to succeed where the less experienced player would fail. If you can't handle losing, you should reconsider playing competitively.

There will always be a best deck and a best card. There will always be people who play the best deck because they feel it gives them an advantage. Similarly there will always be people that play the deck that is best at beating the best deck, for the same reasons. Lastly there will always be people who play whatever they want because it is what they like, or possibly, because they feel it gives them an advantage. Whining about hypothetical spoiled children that win tournaments is ridiculous.

I didn't say "should be". I said "intended". I said "vision". And I'm not talking about Standard. I'm talking about Legacy. Obviously they have to administrate more than one format here. When the powers that be created Legacy, their intention certainly couldn't have been to create a format where one archetype rules all. That's not healthy at all.

I love hearing about you talk about what the creators of type 1.5 intended.



Please, tell me more...

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Wow, thanks for reminding me why I have coverage muted 100% of the time. You have to either be wrong on purpose or not understand the concept of "a group" of people to be that stupid.

People complain about things. People on forums (a group of people, no less) can complain about the exact opposite thing at the same time! It doesn't mean that the same people are complaining about both things. They can even both valid complaints, even though they're talking about the same exact thing from 2 different sides! Okay now that we have numbers of people that are more than 1 settled we can take on his next big point.

People can want cards that are good, but not too good to be printed for their format. Something that's playable, but doesn't make it into 6/8 of the top 8, for example. If no good cards are printed, their want is not satisfied. If a card is printed that needs to go in most decks in the format their want is still not satisfied.

Complaining about people complaining about whining while your signature is Tasteless bemoaning the amount of complaining.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Complaining about people complaining about whining while your signature is Tasteless bemoaning the amount of complaining.

That's pretty much exclusively why this thread exists though. The old days are gone, now it's just popcorn and lawn chairs.

But to be fair even back in the days where everyone would have been nice to each other I'd probably still bitch about the MTG commentators. They are so bad it's astounding.

[Stevestamopz]

P.Sulli's rant is really just an exercise in how big of a strawman can one angry dude make

"Don't complain that Deathrite makes mana when Lions Eye Diamond Exists, when Ancient Tomb exists."

Yeah man, W O K E argument you got there.

[KærvekTheMerciless]

You're right, what I meant was that Cook was going to beat you no matter what.


Huh... sounds like scientology...
Let's remember that all sets since Alpha contain cards that are superior to others. It is foolish to suggest that a player's ability on their own is what should determine the outcome of a match. It's also called wishful thinking. A player's ability has only ever been part of the equation.

It is also a positive that a format has decks capable of high performance even when the pilot has low experience. Look at Burn, the concept/execution is simple and the deck is highly affordable. The deck is capable of winning an event even if the pilot has limited experience with the deck or knowledge of the format. The beauty of the game is that a player who has experience with the deck and knowledge of the format is rewarded with opportunities to succeed where the less experienced player would fail. If you can't handle losing, you should reconsider playing competitively.

There will always be a best deck and a best card. There will always be people who play the best deck because they feel it gives them an advantage. Similarly there will always be people that play the deck that is best at beating the best deck, for the same reasons. Lastly there will always be people who play whatever they want because it is what they like, or possibly, because they feel it gives them an advantage. Whining about hypothetical spoiled children that win tournaments is ridiculous.




I love hearing about you talk about what the creators of type 1.5 intended.



Please, tell me more...

I have a horrible record against Cook lifetime. But realistically, I have horrible stats in Legacy as a whole. But I don't really care about that. I might leave a tournament 1-4, like I did last time, and make the 3 hour drive thinking about what I can change. I might scrub out of a GP on day 1, but you can make damn sure I turn a profit on the trip in just grinders. I'm not into this format because I win or lose. (And I do more losing) I'm not out to play professionally. I play Legacy because I want to. Because this format is where I want to be. And I play what I built, because I built it. That's what I do. I play my shitpile, against other shitpiles. And that's OK with me. It's how I enjoy this game. However, certain things create unenjoyable situations. Like watching my opponent drop Emrakul on t1 because.....fucking junk shit. Like seeing the same god damn 21 cards in almost every damn deck, because....fucking junk shit. I don't care to see that, it cheapens the experience. Its success only enhances its status, and influences more people into adapting "fucking junk shit" into their decks.

No, I don't like the color blue. Blue can die in a fire. A horrible, fiery, RED fire.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

[Nielsie]

Time for a hypothetical question: suppose the best engine in Legacy wasn't Xerox but Loam and suppose Loam decks would use all kinds of different wincons in different archetypes, you have a loam combo deck, control deck, tempo deck, aggro deck. Now suppose Loam has a 60+% in representation. How long would it take for Loam to be banned?

It's really easy to fix Legacy, there is just too much blue circle jerking going on to make it happen...

[death]

Time for a hypothetical question: suppose the best engine in Legacy wasn't Xerox but Loam and suppose Loam decks would use all kinds of different wincons in different archetypes, you have a loam combo deck, control deck, tempo deck, aggro deck. Now suppose Loam has a 60+% in representation. How long would it take for Loam to be banned?

For green cards it usually takes a good couple of months, for blue cards it's actually longer, more like a couple of years or so, give or take.

[Lemnear]

I'm inclined to agree. Probe causes Storm players to know precisely when they can go off, which albeit is useful information, but I'll give you a scenario. I recently played against Cook. He had no discard in his open, a Probe, and a t2 kill. I had Chalice, but no accelerant to drop t1 Chalice for 1. So I play a land and pass. He Probes, sees the Chalice, and goes for it. If Probe didn't exist, that game would have turned out different.

You mean by him just taking a look at the odds and deciding to outright kill you rather than peeking at your grip of "do nothing" beforehand? It sounds like you don't know how to play storm by the odds.

[Fox]

I'm inclined to agree. Probe causes Storm players to know precisely when they can go off, which albeit is useful information, but I'll give you a scenario. I recently played against Cook. He had no discard in his open, a Probe, and a t2 kill. I had Chalice, but no accelerant to drop t1 Chalice for 1. So I play a land and pass. He Probes, sees the Chalice, and goes for it. If Probe didn't exist, that game would have turned out different.

Questionable - particularly when you've not listed-off your T1 land. If the land was colorless, Plains, Windswept Heath, Mire, Badlands, Scrubland, etc... then TES should be going for a kill as soon as possible (Tabernacle decks generally betray their identity on turn one). Pretty much every fair, non-Tabernacle, non-FoW deck in legacy hides behind discard or 2-drop "you can't win" cards; it's a pretty poor example for Probe dictating the course of the game.

The more effective way to make this point is to correctly draw the systematic connection between Probe decks and deeper tournament runs on the back of ruling out need to follow a conservative line. There are better reasons to ban Probe than this, but yes, there is a connection between free info converting into free wins.

[Lemnear]

Questionable - particularly when you've not listed-off your T1 land. If the land was colorless, Plains, Windswept Heath, Mire, Badlands, Scrubland, etc... then TES should be going for a kill as soon as possible (Tabernacle decks generally betray their identity on turn one). Pretty much every fair, non-Tabernacle, non-FoW deck in legacy hides behind discard or 2-drop "you can't win" cards; it's a pretty poor example for Probe dictating the course of the game.

The more effective way to make this point is to correctly draw the systematic connection between Probe decks and deeper tournament runs on the back of ruling out need to follow a conservative line. There are better reasons to ban Probe than this, but yes, there is a connection between free info converting into free wins.

This is absolutely spot on.

[Ronald Deuce]

Time for a hypothetical question: suppose the best engine in Legacy wasn't Xerox but Loam and suppose Loam decks would use all kinds of different wincons in different archetypes, you have a loam combo deck, control deck, tempo deck, aggro deck. Now suppose Loam has a 60+% in representation.

I actually think that'd be awesome.

Next step: fit Brainstorm and Life from the Loam into the same deck.

[Megadeus]

I actually think that'd be awesome.

Next step: fit Brainstorm and Life from the Loam into the same deck.

Wasn't BUG Landstill doing that before bullshit like delver and DRS came around?

[Hanni]

The Mind Harvester in my signature fits Brainstorm and Life from the Loam in the same deck. I haven't updated that thread with my current list in quite a while, but the shell is still basically the same, except I cut the EE/Ruins for Stage/Depths.

[death]

This was my pet deck pre-DRS and Shardless Agent and I still have them sleeved up, the primer I wrote was merged under Team America Control:

1 Verdant Catacombs
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Polluted Delta
3 Bayou
2 Tropical Island
4 Underground Sea
4 Wasteland

3 Snapcaster Mage
1 Vendilion Clique

4 Jace, the Mind Sculptor
3 Liliana of the Veil
4 Brainstorm
4 Force of Will
2 Spell Snare
2 Ghastly Demise
1 Counterspell
1 Maelstrom Pulse
2 Ponder
2 Thoughtseize
2 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Innocent Blood
3 Pernicious Deed
1 Life from the Loam


I was late to adapt Abrupt Decay because it's not a 1-mana removal spell. Someone on this forum was buying Jap foil Decays at $170-$190 for his Storm sideboard. BUG Delver performed well with Abrupt Decay against RUG which led to Canadian's downfall.

[morgan_coke]

I actually ran Brainstorm with Loam in some Slide lists when I was experimenting with Blue. It was just kind of depressing how much better it was than having cycling cards, so I dropped it.

EDIT: Brainstorm + Loam is basically the Legacy version of CAW-Cartel. It's just that with Delver and Angler, you don't really need to mess around with a slow-ish card draw engine when you can just win. DRS ubiquity also somewhat suppresses Loam since it can hit both halves of the Loam engine repeatedly.

[Crimhead]

Time for a hypothetical question: suppose the best engine in Legacy wasn't Xerox but Loam and suppose Loam decks would use all kinds of different wincons in different archetypes, you have a loam combo deck, control deck, tempo deck, aggro deck. Now suppose Loam has a 60+% in representation. How long would it take for Loam to be banned?

This is a pretty sketchy comparison, because Loam is a naturally more narrow card. Loam only gives you CA in terms of lands and graveyard interactions. It is an inherently more limited engine than 1-mana filters, and it supports exactly 2 archetypes - a combo/prison deck and a midrange deck - and that's it.

In order to imagine your scenario, I have to imagine tempo decks and straight combo decks running off Loam. I Also need to imagine a variety of these decks - Tempo decks as varied as U/R, Infect and Grixis; combo decks as varied as Reanimator, Storm, and S&T; midranged decks as varied as Czech and Blade Control; and a variety of rogue decks too - all powered by Loam.

I personally just can't picture Loam supporting that much variety because the card is just not that versatile. So inevitable when I imagine a format with 60% Loam decks, I do not imagine diversity. It's like trying to imagine a diverse format with a variety of play-styles all supported by LED - it doesn't make any sense.