Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
As for why I called your claims baseless. It is not a given that duals will become more played, as it isn't a given that 3 color mana bases running 12 duals would be the optimal mana base. Such a mana base would probably be even more susceptible to hate compared to a 4c mana base with fetches simply because fixing would no longer be a guaranteed thing. There would have to be increased considerations for basics since singletons could no longer be fetched, and other non-fetchable lands would become more valuable for their ability to provide fixing, such as the filter lands. This overall increases the costs and considerations required to run 3+ colors, and wouldn't just cause everyone to simply run only abu dual mana bases, which I assume is your rationale for why their prices would skyrocket. This is simply reintroducing costs of deck building that have become relatively non existent in the current incarnation of legacy that has become spoiled with fixing. You are welcome to explain how increasing such considerations would make the format 'casual'.
With regards to making bloodmoon and wasteland unavoidable again, I do no understand this point because these things have always been avoidable for the entire history of the format. Are you arguing that these things should be avoidable for those that want to run greedy mana bases, and if so what would you propose the cost of running many colors be if not the ability to be punished? These cards are only good against punishing mana bases that are overextended, this is a cost analysis that every deck in the format has to consider and many decks choose to avoid the question all together by running relatively robust and resilient mana bases, typically running only one or two colors. Being susceptible to mana disruption is a cost that you have to pay if you want to run an extended mana base. This is a case of wanting to have your cake and eating it too.
And finally your last remark about games being determined by their opening hands. While I will assume that you are being hyperbolic in this statement, it still doesn't consider the fact that essentially every other deck that doesn't run cantrips does not have the luxury of having an opening hand that can look at several more cards to increase consistency, or the ability to sculpt their hand by shuffling away their weakest cards. Non cantrip decks already have to deal with this, but the idea that the cantrip shell will somehow be in dire straits because their consistency will be nerfed (not even to the level of non cantrip decks mind you) seems silly. Unless your argument is that blue should be able to have access to unparalleled consistency, and by association the best mana fixing (partly because of fetchlands) and therefore access to the largest pool of powerful cards, or in other words, that the cantrip shell should be the de facto engine in legacy, and that leads to the healthiest and most diverse format, I don't quite understand what you are advocating for. What you are saying just ignores the rest of the format that isn't cantrip based, the part of the format that has had its representation in the format dwindle away over the past decade. These are the reasons why I called your claims baseless, you are welcome to provide your reasoning for why you believe otherwise, but you only listed a bunch of 'sky is falling' scenarios without providing the reasoning behind why such cases would manifest.
Greedy mana bases are relative to the context of the format they are in. The greediness of a mana base is simply determined by its ability to provide the necessary fixing on demand at the cost of its susceptibility to disruption. There is no universal. For example DnT list could also run a comparatively greedy mana base by not running any basics for whatever reason. Cards like fetchlands, DRS, and cantrips all effect this equation both by fixing and getting around disruption. Now without DRS the format has adjusted accordingly to less demanding mana bases because the removal of DRS has lowered the overall ability to provide mana fixing and disruption mitigation. That doesn't mean that greedy mana bases don't exist anymore, it just means that the greediest mana bases of the previous format are not viable anymore.
Why the focus on fetchlands? Scg team open had 7 decks with creatures in top 8, scg classic had 8/8, last legacy challenge had 8/8. Creatures obv are the real threat to diversity. Ban all creatures! Sure it will be a long bannedlist, but some cards should be safe to unrestrict. Survival(banned just bc of creatures). Oath of druids probably, earthcraft. The list goes on and on...
Seriously. The focus on fetchlands seems totally arbitrarily. Even if 100% of all decks played fetchlands it would not say anything about format diversity. Legacy is extremely diverse now, imo almost too diverse. Tournament outcome is often very influenced by pairing rng.
Regarding b&r, i just wish that they should focus more on unbannings going forward.
Would it be too weird if people talked about how the format would look without fetch lands and weighed any potential net upside (hypothetical format versus current format) against the downside of adding cards to the ban list? (I mean, instead of trolling?) The first issue is interesting by itself as a hypothetical, and the second follows logically if you identify any net upside considering the first issue.
My expectation is that some currently unused cycles of two-color fixing lands would see use, which would be interesting because they all have strategic trade-offs (after the true dual lands). Deck builders would have to evaluate how to fit the trade-offs into their design. Rainbow lands such as Mana Confluence could see use too. Decks reliant on 3+ colors might need to invest in fixing spells (Birds of Paradise, etc.) to have dependable mana bases. To me, all of this is upside because (a) differentiation between decks to build around synergies and trade-offs is the inherently interesting part of deck building, which could extend to mana bases more than it does now, and (b) a core mechanic of the game is that more colors require more deck-building investment.
If you don't see upside in the previous paragraph, I have questions to ask: Would it be good or bad for the format if Wizards printed triple fetch lands that didn't cost life? (I.e., Sunny Wooded Clifftop Zoo: T, Sac: Fetch a Plains, Mountain or Forest, put it in play, and shuffle.) Is the fetch land cycle perfect, or do we just love them because we've played with them forever? (I'm not judging if that's the case --- this is a huge reason why anyone plays Magic.)
As for the whether the net upside (in the hypothetical format versus real format comparison) is worth the downside of adding cards to the ban list... I don't think it is, but in my mind it's close. Vintage mana bases that predate the fetch lands always seemed cool to me.
Edit: It is also fair to maintain that, whatever is true or not in my second paragraph, running Copperline Gorge and Stomping Ground doesn't feel to you like Legacy, and therefore the hypothetical format is a negative compared to current Legacy no matter what game-design properties it possesses. I could understand that position, but it would be disappointing if someone were to take it while also accusing people who want to ban fetch lands of wanting to make their own pet deck better. It's nostalgia either way.
Edit2: nice post, phonics. (Three-color mana bases, if attempted without fetch lands, would still probably use a bunch of dual lands though, don't you think?)
My guess is that rainbow lands regain some of their past glory for sure before twelve duals get played in a 3-color deck.
I think its possible that duals would see more play, only because there is pretty much no precedence for what mana bases would look like. Without fetchable basics you probably need to run a considerably more amount of basics to survive moon, then if you are dealing with a mana base with duals and basics double color cards would become a lot trickier to cast. Filter lands and rainbow lands could alleviate this but at the same time would continue to cut into the dual land count of decks. 3c+ decks now/ previously ran about 7-10 of fetches and duals, with utility/basics rounding out the base. So it really depends on if you can properly fix your deck with those 7-10 slots that open up. Overall I think basics would become much more important.
I seriously could sign this suggestion and support it with all my heart.
But I suspect I can see the reason the average inhabitant of this thread reacted with skepticism: you said "ban all creatures". Don't you know the most overpowered ones? Delver of secrets, True-Name Nemesis, Snapcaster Mage... what they all do have in common? of course they are blue!
I think you could have more success if you suggested "can we please ban all blue creatures?"
This should also have the side effect of reducing the power of brainstorm, since less people would be encouraged to play those pesky blue decks if we deprive them of creatures, and since blue is played almost as a splash, also reduce those awful greedy tri-color decks.
I mean, it's all for the Healtiness of the Format, it's not like it is a personal preference: obviously reducing the number of colors in the game from 5 to 4 cutting entirely blue would be optimal for Format Diversity.
Seriously, I was a misbeliever, but now that I am starting to see the Supreme Truth and how much Wisdom some people have, I have even new ideas to suggest... for example, in order to suppress all this TOO easy manafixing, why limit ourselves to ban fetchland? Can't we also ban birds of paradise, noble hierarch, llanowar elves, and all mana dorks in general? I know, they aren't blue, I know, it would be a pretty long list, I know, we just had a ban for one of them, but maybe it's not enough.
Also, in order to further advance the relevance of the skill in the outcome of a match, and to have more enjoyable game experience, shouldn't we all be able to always resolve our Lovely Spells? I suggest we ban all kind of counterspell effect; no, now that I am becoming more bold, I suggest we ban all kind of instant-speed interactions, be it spells or abilities. And if you think you could answer "why don't you go play earthstone then?", you hater, stop saying we can't have a Legacy in Our Own Image.
Last edited by talpa; 07-17-2018 at 05:18 AM.
I still think it's a strawman that you are attacking; none of the ban-fetchland discussion has revolved around pushing a particular strategy, even if you contrive it to be so by inserting your interpretation of it.
This thread has revolved around Brainstorm since it's beginning, and when someone brings up a different angle, one that is at least a fresh look at why Brainstorm is so good (free shuffle effects), you shoot it down and then go on an arrogant filibuster for the past 2 pages.
I'd carry on, but...
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
My fault.
I confess. I haven't read all 1000 pages. I saw here and there someone complaining about brainstorm, but I always considered the discussion foolish and worthless.
So now you tell me this thread really should change the subject from "B/R update speculation" to "should WOTC ban brainstorm?". Maybe this thread should have been closed on April then, once Forsythe closed the issue?
PS
That's plainly false. Your fellow campaigner let this slip:
the bandwagon is precisely trying to demolish current tiers.
Then walk away from it maybe? We're not holding a gun to your head, and it has been (mostly) civil so far.
Many have suggested the thread title be changed; I have no feelings about the title one way or another.So now you tell me this thread really should change the subject from "B/R update speculation" to "should WOTC ban brainstorm?". Maybe this thread should have been closed on April then, once Forsythe closed the issue?
This is an observation, maybe a prediction, definitely speculation, but not an agenda.That's plainly false. Your fellow campaigner let this slip:
the bandwagon is precisely trying to demolish current tiers.Without fetchlands, all of those tier 1 decks become tier 2 decks and there are no tier 1 decks
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
You're right. Then, that's definetly worth speaking of something that a minority think should happen, but never would
@MrSafety and your polite invite to walk away: no, thanks. I enjoy this thread too much.
With regards to guns, if I was a mod I would be pointing it to everybody seriously suggesting some kind of bans, whether we should call that agendas or hopeful speculations, but alas, I was a mod only on an old italian forum, those times are long gone.
Just for the record, going by the years' worth of discussion in this thread, it's not clear that those who want Brainstorm banned are in the minority. It's likely they are, but by a margin far smaller than you seem to think. There are a great many Legacy players who think it should be banned, and there are many arguments in favor (and of course against) that position, as evidenced by hundreds of pages' worth of discussion on the topic here.
No offense intended, but acting as dismissive as you are of the topic seems fairly sophomoric.
No offense taken, nor intended on my part too. But I don't take the posts on this particular thread of this particular forum as representative of the entire population of active legacy player. In my personal experience of real tournaments I never encountered someone seriously suggesting a brainstorm ban. Occasionally I found a very very minority of someone who complained about losing after a lucky brainstorm of the opponent.
If I was to take this thread information, I think I should stick to the poll who says 8%?
Ponder can't be considered a "holy cow" though. It's only been around since Lorwyn. A "holy cow" for me has to be, at the very least, pre-Onslaught printing. Brainstorm, FoW? Sure, keep em'. Ponder going to shit up top 8s? Ban it. There are lots of other 1cc cantrips out there, starting at Preordain+Serum Visions.
edit: I would have personally banned the shit out of Ponder already, for what it counts. It's annoyingly too good.
I don't see why there should be any holy cows. Not even FoW. If FoW is unbannable, it's indeed due to its own merit, "because it's the glue that holds the format together", ie allows it to not degenerate into broken combo A versus broken combo B vs broken combo C.
I'm not saying "ban Brainstorm" (even if sometimes its ubiquity makes me itch), but banning Ponder and have BS still be fair game would be stupid by any metric that is not a purely emotional (and subjective) one.
With that out, I perfectly realize it could very well be that BS is not on the banlist today due to it being treated as a "holy cow" by WotC. If that is indeed why, I can only voice my complete dissent with the argument.
There are currently 494 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 494 guests)