All B/R update speculation.

[Morte]

Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format"

Format diversity, that's implicit. Whatever becomes a constant everywhere, like the P9 in Old School, is the very definition of what is "bad" for format diversity. Guess Lemnear is right, this is not an opinion. But that's not why I'm joining the conversation:

Did you played in 1994? do you play old school? wow, let's play without fetchlands, what a wonderful experience for the manabases

That's interesting for me. I used to play in 1994 and now I'm a proud Old School player. I love it also for the experience of the crazy manabase that you can enjoy in this card-diversity killer format. The best deck in the format, called "the Deck", can be 5 colors in a meta where Blood Moon is definitely a thing. Power of the right mix of duals, City of Brass, P9 and... crazy broken Fellwar Stone? And I enjoy 3-5 colors decks all the time, with very different strategies.

With fetchlands gone, multicolor decks are not dying at all; they're just varying the manabase on a much wider and customized card pool.

(side note, I'm actually impartial about the topic, last time I played legacy was years ago. Cheers)

[Mr. Safety]

Actually, as kombatkiwi said, that's precisely what you and all the other "against fetchlands" bandwagon are doing. You are saying that you like decks that are linear, and/or that you like decks that have redundancies more than decks that have filtering options (because a consequence would be build decks with more copies of the relevant cards, more "4x" lists).


Again, as as kombatkiwi said, it's not like it is an "objective truth". The point you make is sound WHEN and IF you accept the goals you are trying to achieve
in short, it's exactly a matter of personal preferences

This is a complete misunderstanding of the argument. I will illustrate:

1) Among people who drink soda, it has found that the high sugar content has detrimental health effects. These can be managed many ways, but overall if soda didn't have as much sugar it would be more reasonable to drink regularly. Sugar is in almost all soda brands, it is nearly ubiquitous.
2) Therefore, we should explore lower-sugar or sugar-less soda recipes to offset the general risk of too much sugar.

Now you're response is:

3) Why da fuck do y'all love Diet Coke so much? Just pushing your preferences man!

If you think that example looks foolish, it is. But that's how you're spinning it.

[tsabo_tavoc]

Your examples are a tribal card for a mostly green tribe and a bunch of green cards that generate mana. Do you really not see the difference between that and Underground Sea being the best card to open on for mana acceleration?

Now you are talking about efficiency rather than the colour pie.
The colour pie is actually NOT about which colour can/cannot do which, but rather which colour should do which things best, i.e., most efficiently. One example, Desert Twister destroys nonflying creatures for green, but it is totally fine at 6cc.
True Name Nemesis infringes and supersedes white's protection pie; Delver of Secrets despises all other colours by being the most efficient 1cc aggro creature, the least blue is supposed to do.

Edit: If DRS were banned due to colour pie infringement, WotC would have happily stated it. This is one of their favorite excuses after all.

[Lemnear]

Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format".
WOTC repeteadly said that the mere numbers are not a sufficient reason for a ban. That should be enough for all your nothingness.

Argument was and is diversity.

Nobody said fetchlands aren't played. The point is that giving to this FACT (!!11!1!!!!) the SUBJECTIVE value of "BAD" is, exactly, subjective. We could, can, and DO say that it's "GOOD".

BS+Ponder+Fetchlands isnt "good" for the formats diversity. It has a track record of rendering every other cardselection and manafixing next to unplayable.

As I said in my first post here, arguing with a conspiracist like you clearly are is pointless, given that you are even serious when you laughably use the word "engine" for a cycle of 10 cards with an ability. Let's suggest WOTC to add "fetch" as a mechanic in the storm scale and give it the value of 11. LOL

Don't act even more dull than your post already implies by intentionally misinterpreting what I said.

Did you played in 1994? do you play old school? wow, let's play without fetchlands, what a wonderful experience for the manabases.

I touched cards the first time when Arabian Nights was in stock and booster boxes contained one of every rare card of the set by default. I dont know what the point is. Do you imply that the game was unplayable until Onslaught due to no Fetchlands until then?

[talpa]

I "gladly" note that everybody answered my trolling but nobody answered to my serious questions.
I think this speaks for how serious the "ban fetchland" bandwagon is.

More sugar please!

Keep saying that fetchlands are detrimental to format diversity while all the evidence suggests the contrary and without any proof supporting the claim (proof which of course can't exist, because you can't test a legacy-2018-but-without-fetchland as a comparison, and so you can't have "facts" but only speculations for how the format COULD be, the before-fetchland-printing past not being representative at all).

But of course, If I don't recall wrong, this is the same thread where some people claim that since brainstorm is ubiquitous it's detrimental for format diversity, as if ANT, miracle and delver were the same archetype because they all play brainstorm.

All the decks that play fetchlands are the same thing, we play mirrors all day, how boring!
Nic-fit vs canadian? they both have fetchland, so it's a mirror match!
Miracle vs delver? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!
Aggro Loam vs Infect? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!
Elves vs ANT? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!

I could go on, but it's better to stop and simply use a quote of your own:

If you think that example looks foolish, it is. But that's how you're spinning it.

(PS.

Format diversity, that's implicit. Whatever becomes a constant everywhere, like the P9 in Old School, is the very definition of what is "bad" for format diversity. Guess Lemnear is right, this is not an opinion

Cool... according to you "bad" is not an opinion but a fact. By this same "fact", I guess, people should play vintage without P9 because, come on, everybody plays them, how boring! how bad for the format diversity! ... or wait... maybe... they are not the definition of how "bad" the format is, but instead they are the VERY definition of what the format IS?
but wait... if we follow this line of reasoning... then the very definition of legacy should be Brainstorm, Fow, Wasteland, fetches. But I can't accept this conclusion, go away you heretic! LOL)


Are you playing limited? But it's basic lands everywhere, how boring! If they are everywhere it's detrimental for format diversity! Let's ban basic island!
Go play commander, please

[Lemnear]

I "gladly" note that everybody answered my trolling but nobody answered to my serious questions.

Maybe because nobody found a "serious question" between all the trolling, acting stupid on purpose and excessive LOLs?

[kirkusjones]

Go play commander, please

There is enough pissing and moaning in the EDH echo chamber already. I would kindly appreciate if you did not encourage more. One the flipside, for those looking for diversity, EDH will take those tired, poor and wretched refuges of Legacy. Just don't be surprised when somebody gets butthurt when you combo off all over their faces.

[kombatkiwi]

Maybe because nobody found a "serious question" between all the trolling, acting stupid on purpose and excessive LOLs?

Your problem is that you simply state that ubiquity is bad, you don't explain why and you assume everybody who disagrees with you is trolling:

5/20 of the most played cards in the format are Fetchlands. 48% of decks run Polluted Delta. These numbers are not subjective and neither that many of the banned cards in recent years ran on the back of this engine.

The NUMBERS are not subjective but what those numbers MEAN is.

1.) Ubiquity of a card in the format is not inherently a bad thing

- In every chess match in modern history each player has had 8 Pawns 2 Rooks 2 Bishops 2 Knights 1 King and 1 Queen. Every player has used the exact same pieces for over 100 years in a 16 v 16 mirror match and the game has remained popular

- In Yugioh, for example, the popular historical formats are 'Goat Format' or 'Tele-DAD format', times when there was a tier 0 midrange/control deck and at the top level of competition you would only face mirror matches where everybody's list was like 80% the same

Many players are not excited by the possibility of winning with many different decks and would rather play a familiar match where players have more of an opportunity to influence the outcome by making in-game decisions. This is one of the major criticisms leveled at modern (there are so many decks that are viable that in the long run you have the freedom to play many different things, but matchups are still lopsided, so every tournament is basically a lottery where you hope you picked the winning deck for that day).

The soda analogy is dumb because a) I don't agree that fetchlands are inherently unhealthy in the same way that sugar is ("more sugar please", some would say), and b) coca cola doesn't have to delete their original recipe to sell a stevia version but legacy can only be one thing at a time.
If CC announced they were arbitrarily replacing their original drink people would get upset about it. (In 1985 this did happen)
Imagine if the Coca Cola company said "We have noticed that all of our products are carbonated: Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Fanta... in the interest of beverage diversity, from today onwards Sprite is flat". You're simply taking some arbitrary element of a thing and erasing it because it's 'too common' without any concern for what it does to the overall quality.

Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format".
Nobody said fetchlands aren't played. The point is that giving to this FACT (!!11!1!!!!) the SUBJECTIVE value of "BAD" is, exactly, subjective. We could, can, and DO say that it's "GOOD".

You can call this "trolling, acting stupid on purpose, and excessive LOLs", but the fact remains that you still haven't addressed this at all.
All you do is sit there screaming "ITS OVER 48 PERCEEEEEEENT" like Vegeta

These describe the status quo and only lack an argument for MD graveyard hate to fit for an "UNBAN DRS" campaign. Is the third point a nod to #SkillIntensive?

Yes, these do support the status quo and function as arguments for unbanning DRS. I was aware of this when I wrote it. I was largely indifferent to the DRS ban and in favour of the probe ban. I think that revealing the opponent's hand for 0 mana and 0 cards ruins an important element of what makes MTG enjoyable as a card game (hidden information), and Probe leads to high variance games when people get Mind Rotted with Therapy on turn 1. DRS doesn't do anything that I find inherently offensive like this, so while it's a very powerful card I don't really mind whether it's banned or not.

I'm sure many people would complain that this thinking can't be used as input on whether a card should be banned, because you can't make this decision based on personal opinion. I totally disagree, because the 'objective measure' you have come up with is meaningless.
Everybody knows the game 'Rock-Paper-Scissors', the solved meta is 33% rock 33% paper 33% scissors. Uh oh, 33% is kind of high.
Let's take a leaf from the literal shitshow big bang theory and play Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock instead.
This expands the rules to give us the following: Lizard > Paper, Paper > Spock, Spock > Scissors, Scissors > Lizard, Rock > Lizard, Spock > Rock, and Lizard > Spock. (Yes, I had to google it).
Now the solved meta is 20% rock 20% paper 20% scissors 20% spock 20% lizard.
Phew, the dominance of the top strategies have all been reduced by the introduction of these new contenders.
But have we improved the game? No, it's exactly the fucking same.

Is every deck running the same engine not a problem in regards to diversity?

Is lack of diversity a problem? Diversity of what?

It's hard to form a consensus on what constitutes an enjoyable game and it's probably not possible that the entire community will ever unanimously agree on any BR decision, but at least acknowledge this, rather than refusing to accept that there are a significant number of people who see your 48% and don't give a shit. You're still acting like this data is a massive revelation and that once people know the truth everybody will immediately jump on your bandwagon

2). Nobody has put any effort into predicting what will actually happen to the format if fetchlands are banned

Brainstorm isn't very good in pauper because there are no fetchlands. People cry endlessly about Preordain instead. People will always cry about something. People cry that wizards won't print good spells anymore and that modern magic is all about smashing dumb creatures together and then 5 minutes later they cry that Wild Nacatl is unplayable and Brainstorm needs to be banned. Nobody has said anything to even TRY to convince me that this won't immediately happen when fetchlands leave. All formats are essentially solvable after a long enough period of time, the cream will rise to the top, and then people will start to cry about it. We've literally just had a ban announcement only 2 weeks ago and people instantly want to roll the stone up the hill again. How is it better if we have Ponder + Preordain in this situation rather than Ponder + Brainstorm?

BS+Ponder+Fetchlands isnt "good" for the formats diversity. It has a track record of rendering every other cardselection and manafixing next to unplayable.

This is the most myopic attitude. There will always be a best thing that makes other things unplayable just by existing. Nobody plays preordain in Legacy because you have Brainstorm and Ponder. Nobody plays Serum Visions in Pauper because you have Ponder and Preordain. Are we supposed to just ban it all so the only playable cantrip in all formats is Opt? Tarmogoyf outclassing Watchwolf and Grizzly Bear? Time for a ban. No decklists with Shock? Lightning Bolt, I guess your time is up.

Nobody has made any argument to support the idea that fetches are this magical panacea, where we ban those and then we all live in perfect harmony afterwards. Nobody has made any objective argument as to why games with fetchlands are bad (apart from the shuffling/time aspect). The only problem people have managed to lay out is that the numbers are over some abitrary percentage so they need to be cut down, and I just don't see the point in riding that same hampster wheel over and over and over and over...

[Hanni]

I like that Legacy is a format of powerful cards. I'm fine with certain cards being the best at whatever it is they do. I like that Legacy has a ton of unique and quirky decks like Manaless Dredge and Lands.

There are other formats that exist that can provide what it is that you seek, and they come with better tournament support from WotC. Why must we continue this circle jerk of constantly demanding for bans in a format that should have as small of a banlist as possible?

[Finn]

Hanni, I think there is an argument to be made that banning fetchlands allows the unban of some interesting cards. It’s not really a solved issue.

[morgan_coke]

Hanni, I think there is an argument to be made that banning fetchlands allows the unban of some interesting cards. It’s not really a solved issue.

For example, Astral Slide is much more likely to be playable in a format without fetchlands. And I think that's something we can all agree is a good thing.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

For example, Astral Slide is much more likely to be playable in a format without fetchlands. And I think that's something we can all agree is a good thing.

I loved that deck (GW version).

[Hanni]

Yes, let's ban the best cards so that worse cards become the best cards. And then we can ban those, too.

[Ace/Homebrew]

If Astral Slide becomes a playable Legacy deck, it will completely suppress Clerics.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Good. Mother of Runes is too powerful, something needs to knock her down a peg. May as well be a grindy green and white deck...

[Mr. Safety]

I wasn't arguing a point, just revealing how talpa argues. It was intentionally 'dumb'. The point I was making that it was a leap to think that arguing for a healthier format (whether or not you agree what is healthy or not) doesn't mean a specific deck agenda is being pushed. What is being pushed is the health of the format.

Take the ban-fetch argument and deal with it on its own merits, or lack of it. Don't toss out childish accusations, which aren't even implied, that the 'ban-fetch-bandwagon' (news to me that this even exists) wants janky garbage decks to be tier 1. You might as well just say "you don't want fetches cuz you're a loooozer who plays bad decks."

Here's a real argument: wizards could continue banning cards and admitting many mistakes, or ban fetches and admit *one* mistake. Again, I have no stock I wotc, but from a damage control point of view, that's a net gain. Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches.

[Mr. Safety]

Hanni, I think there is an argument to be made that banning fetchlands allows the unban of some interesting cards. It’s not really a solved issue.

Cheers, mate. It's at least a consideration.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches.

If fetches get banned, then people will come after Blood Moon. So this line of thinking need to fucking stop!

[Brael]

Here's a real argument: wizards could continue banning cards and admitting many mistakes, or ban fetches and admit *one* mistake. Again, I have no stock I wotc, but from a damage control point of view, that's a net gain. Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches.

Technically, banning fetches would be admitting 10 mistakes, and would do up to $2000 in damage to each Legacy players collection value.

That's a pretty good reason to not ban them.

[Mr. Safety]

Technically, banning fetches would be admitting 10 mistakes, and would do up to $2000 in damage to each Legacy players collection value.

That's a pretty good reason to not ban them.

Agreed, but the argument for a fetch ban still intrigues me. I may not have a full set of duals, but I am heavily invested in fetches.

Can we at least recognize that there is at least a valid argument for banning fetches, even if ultimately it won't, and probably shouldn't, happen? My main peeve is that most players dismiss it out of hand without at least considering what it would do. Is it right to ban fetches? Probably not. But it's a thought provoking idea.

I mean, it's not like this thread actually affects bannings. It's all speculation and shop talk as far as I'm concerned.