All B/R update speculation.

[DarthVicious]

If people could keep this subjective garbage to themselves maybe this thread wouldn't be a hot pile of rotten spam.

I refer you, sir, to the title of the thread.

"Banned List Speculation"

[iatee]

I read this 3 times and it still makes no sense for me. How is a Peek, you can alternatively pay 2 Life for, "unfair" in what it does, while a 1cc Planeswalker with essentially 4 abilities is reasonable?

The terms unfair and fair mean something different in this context. I will give you an example to help you work this one out.

"High Tide is an unfair deck."

It is not a good deck. It's not even an okay deck. But it is an unfair deck.

PREACH.

I find Chalice of the Void and Counterbalance to be very unfun and they both create boring gameplay. You don't see me spouting off that I think they need to be banned, because they don't and they don't have the numbers to back it. Very similar to Gitaxian Probe, it's also easy to assume I only think about my self interest with TES. I care most about format health, because without Legacy, there is no TES. Gitaxian Probe isn't a format issue, unlike Deathrite Shaman.

I also think Chalice should be banned, because it creates unfun gameplay. The only number you need to back up that statement with is "Chalice on 1." And like Probe, I think it's only a matter of time, since they're going to print more and more pushed colorless cards over the years.

[Crimhead]

The terms unfair and fair mean something different in this context. I will give you an example to help you work this one out.

"High Tide is an unfair deck."

It is not a good deck. It's not even an okay deck. But it is an unfair deck.

Probe is played in Storm and Dredge, but it's also played in "fair" decks like Delver and Infect.

I refer you, sir, to the title of the thread.

"Banned List Speculation"

Speculating about the banned list =/= griping about pet hate cards which are not OP.

[taconaut]

I also think Chalice should be banned, because it creates unfun gameplay. The only number you need to back up that statement with is "Chalice on 1." And like Probe, I think it's only a matter of time, since they're going to print more and more pushed colorless cards over the years.

iatee, what does your ideal legacy game look like? It sounds like we at least agree that chalice is miserable, though you also hate probe; which cards do you like/think make for good legacy games?

[Lemnear]

The terms unfair and fair mean something different in this context. I will give you an example to help you work this one out.

"High Tide is an unfair deck."

It is not a good deck. It's not even an okay deck. But it is an unfair deck.

So your argument is that one OP card with 60%+ penetration is fine because its played in decks you may like and another OP card, with much lower numbers, is not because it's played in decks you don't like.

Can we stop this "I don't like Delver & Combo, so pls ban Probe" non-argument here?

[iatee]

Probe is played in Storm and Dredge, but it's also played in "fair" decks like Delver and Infect.

Speculating about the banned list =/= griping about pet hate cards which are not OP.

Fair decks don't win on turn 2.

iatee, what does your ideal legacy game look like? It sounds like we at least agree that chalice is miserable, though you also hate probe; which cards do you like/think make for good legacy games?

I think interesting games of Magic are highly interactive games of Magic. Legacy is great because it creates games with a wide variety of forms of interaction - interaction with creatures, lands, planeswalkers, the stack, graveyards, hands, libraries. One of the better defenses of DRS is that it gives decks a form of graveyard interaction with a zone that's usually impossible to interact with game 1. I don't think creature decks should just have to autoscoop to Lands or Reanimator g1. (OTOH - DRS is obviously a bit too good / pushes out other strategies.)

Chalice is obviously not a good card for interactive Magic - it's actually a turn 1 combo card. Chalice decks 'basically win' on turn 1, whether you're attacking with Reality Smasher or Rishadan Cutpurse doesn't matter that much. The fact that you can actually just throw a random word in front of 'Stompy' and it's kinda a viable legacy deck highlights the reason why Chalice should (and I think eventually will) be banned.

Probe pushes uninteractive decks in a lot of ways - free storm, free information, free card in your yard. Against decks that can't interact with the stack, it just allows you to win faster. And against decks that can interact with the stack, it increases the chance that that doesn't even matter, because your combo deck can operate with perfect information and play past them.

I think games where one person didn't get to make any meaningful game actions are super boring, including the games like that that I win because I managed to win the die roll and resolve a Thalia on turn 2. When it doesn't matter how good the players are because the cards play themselves, what's the point of even sitting there and doing this? You're just a vessel that a Storm deck uses to go off with perfect information or a Stompy deck uses to ensure the other guy plays 0 spells.

I am obviously more pro-ban than most people here and I think there's some weird form of Magic libertarianism in a lot of legacy players that prioritizes card-freedom over whether or not a format is actually creating interesting games / rewarding skilled play.

[Lemnear]

You preach wine and serve water.

I have my troubles to take a speech about interactive games for serious, if it comes from one who usually piles up resistors and Landdestruction so his opponents just don't get to play the game at all ;)

[Purple Blood]

Chalice only completely locks out decks when they play all one cost spells. This is a check on deck construction. There's an easy way to avoid a full lockout from cards like Chalice and Blood Moon - play with different cards.

[iatee]

It's not a check on deck construction. Nobody is going to stop playing Brainstorm, Ponder and DRS strategies because they might face a Chalice. Nobody builds their deck considerably differently to beat Chalice g1. Wasteland being in 50% of Legacy decks ensures that you are going to be punished for playing expensive spells more often than you are punished for playing one drops - people build decks to survive in a meta filled with Wasteland/Daze/Thalia. And because of that, once in a while you're punished from the other direction.

Chalice players basically go around hoping to win their die rolls and randomly steal games from people - nobody loses to a Chalice deck and says "Well, I learned my lesson, maybe I should play more two drops." That would actually be a terrible lesson to learn. They say "That sucked, I lost to a guy who probably won't even make t8."

[Crimhead]

I think there's some weird form of Magic libertarianism in a lot of legacy players that prioritizes card-freedom over whether or not a format is actually creating interesting games / rewarding skilled play.

People have different opinions about what makes Legacy interesting and what sort of skill sets they want it to focus pn (mulliganing, meta-gaming, adjusting to different opposing decks, etc).

The "libertarianism" basically means that since we can't agree what makes this game good, we need a better reason than enjoyability to tell somebody they can't play the cards we don't like.

nobody loses to a Chalice deck and says "Well, I learned my lesson, maybe I should play more two drops." That would actually be a terrible lesson to learn.

But if your meta is heavy with Chalice decks you might chose something that plays well against it. Or at least something that has a bit of game (ie, TA > Thresh, SS > Storm, etc).

[Rascalyote]

I agree with purple. If you start every deck list with 4 probe 4 ponder 4 brainstorm it's on you to adapt when you lose to chalice of the void, not cry for it's ban. Brainstorm is the best thing you can be doing in legacy, there should be a strong hate card for it.

Again as much as I hate brainstorm I won't be mad to see it stay (which it will), but I'd be pretty upset if they banned another card that's good in non-blue decks and leave the best card untouched.

[Dice_Box]

I also think Chalice should be banned, because it creates unfun gameplay. The only number you need to back up that statement with is "Chalice on 1." And like Probe, I think it's only a matter of time, since they're going to print more and more pushed colorless cards over the years.

I beg to differ. These cards offer the same advantages to the format that Bloodmoon, Back to Basics or Rest in Peace do. They punish you for building in a hyperfocused, linear way. If we are going to accept that playing decks with 8 to 12 one drop "Air" cards in them for filtering is ok, we need to accept an answer also needs to be available.

I will agree is sucks to be on the receiving end of these cards, God knows I have likely lost to a Bloodmoon more than any of you have to a Chalice, but these cards are a safety valve for those times the format becomes too inbred and insular

[death]

I agree with purple. If you start every deck list with 4 probe 4 ponder 4 brainstorm it's on you to adapt when you lose to chalice of the void, not cry for it's ban. Brainstorm is the best thing you can be doing in legacy, there should be a strong hate card for it.

Again as much as I hate brainstorm I won't be mad to see it stay (which it will), but I'd be pretty upset if they banned another card that's good in non-blue decks and leave the best card untouched.

Still upset about the Top ban? Card is obnoxious.

Yesterday it happend again:

G1 get probed, therapy your force. Two turns later probe again to see if there is another one. No >Storm off

G2 keep 7, play a BS, on the opps turn, probe-> no blue card for force, combo off with no discard.

Such an ape card, even chalice and blood moon might take more skill than this :D

Probe has been in the format since 2011 and you're complaining about it now?

[Rascalyote]

Still upset about the Top ban? Card is obnoxious.

I never really played it and I can see the logistic reasons for it being banned, still feel bad for people who put a lot of time into decks like painter to see a card from it banned though :(

[Dr_D]

RIP DDFT. Can't find a reason to play it over TES or ANT now. It's been nice for my store credit stash though.

[Nielsie]

Meanwhile, DRS is in 60%+ of winning lists online.

Calling for a banning of a card that's played in two decks that isn't hurting the format is foolish because "what it could do". If that was the case, Show and Tell would've been banned years ago.

I don't know where your numbers come from but I don't need to know the source to know what other card is in those lists with an even higher representation. Why are we not banning that monstrosity first in place of a stupid creature that dies to almost everything??? Oh, I know why, because it's blue and has big pile of BS arguments about being some kind of pillar... bunch of BS...

[kombatkiwi]

'Chalice is fine because it's like Rest in Peace for 1-drops'

This argument only makes sense if you think that playing generic efficient cards is "building in a hyperfocused, linear way" in an equivalent fashion to 'Return Ichorid, trigger Prized Amalgam' or 'Tap 3 Cloudpost: Ulamog'.

Why do decks that plan on playing an interactive normal magic need a 1-card way to be shut out of the game?

If you expect that the field is going to have a lot of Miracles, you can play Cloudpost. If you play against Miracles you will be favoured but you will get punished for it if people are playing Delver or Combo. This is therefore a decision with some kind of critical thought involved.

If you expect that the field is going to have a lot of good cards, you can play Chalice of the Void. If people are playing good cards you will be 'favoured', but you will get punished for it if people are playing bad cards. This is not an interesting decision with critical thought involved, because you can say with some certainty that people will be showing up to the tournament with good cards and not bad ones. The reason why it is still not generally a winning strategy to play Chalice decks is because they're so inconsistent and it's therefore miserable to receive a loss from one of these decks knowing that the shitty roulette wheel happened to land on 00 just as you put your money down.

You can argue that losing to chalice is no different to losing to Belcher/RB/Ooops/ any of these other relatively-inconsistent obnoxious turn 1 decks, but these are much more susceptible to counterspells and other dedicated SB hate and they don't enforce this stupid deckbuilding paradigm of 'you will have a higher chance of winning if you don't play as many good cards'

[Dice_Box]

Why do decks that plan on playing an interactive normal magic need a 1-card way to be shut out of the game?

Because they are the most efficient ways to solve a given issue. If I am building a Patriot coloured deck, I am likely going to run in the Side both Moon and RIP. Those two cards, along with my filtering should let me win a large number of games alone. RIP will answer things like Dredge, RUG Delver, Lands or Reanimator all on its own. Sure, I am playing an inactive deck, but if I can land a card and win, sucks to be you. Shit, throw in a Moat into the side of this Patriot deck and you have a lovely set of silver bullets that just destroy some decks. Yay interaction.

Oh and Miracles did that.

If you expect that the field is going to have a lot of good cards, you can play Chalice of the Void. If people are playing good cards you will be 'favoured', but you will get punished for it if people are playing bad cards. This is not an interesting decision with critical thought involved, because you can say with some certainty that people will be showing up to the tournament with good cards and not bad ones.

So, if you expect the format to be heavily slanted in one direction you can play an answer? This is not exactly news. I mean, right now you could show up to an event with Blue Moon and I think you would do more damage than you would with Chalice. The format is so imbreed around 3 or 4 colour decks that use DRS to cover their stability that you could wipe them out with a card.

As for critical thought, people play SnT at big events without much complaint. Let's not pretend a lot of thought is needed to win an event.

You can argue that losing to chalice is no different to losing to Belcher/RB/Ooops/ any of these other relatively-inconsistent obnoxious turn 1 decks, but these are much more susceptible to counterspells and other dedicated SB hate and they don't enforce this stupid deckbuilding paradigm of 'you will have a higher chance of winning if you don't play as many good cards'

No, it's more a situation of "Hey I have the answer to your deck". People are just pissed the answer is so effective. What does it matter if the answer is Force for Dread Return or a Chalice for your cantrips? The fact is we are arguing that a card shuts down a large percentage of a single kind of deck without asking why that is even an option in the first place.

Fact is, Chalice is getting stronger only because of a race to the bottom. When I was playing Goblins in 09, the RUG players where not all that bothered by Chalice and more worried about Lackey. If you plan to play a deck that loses to a card that's your choice and something you have to accept. I run a playset of Enchantment removal in my sideboard for Bloodmoon and RIP. I accept I have a weakness and I try to amend that, I don't cry about the fact that I lose to Bloodmoon, RIP, Storm, Reanimator, SnT, Beltcher, Opps, Prelate, TNN...

If you are weak to a card, plan for it. I mean it's obvious that Chalice is a format warping issue, that's why Eldrazi has done nothing of note in months.

[kombatkiwi]

Because they are the most efficient ways to solve a given issue. If I am building a Patriot coloured deck, I am likely going to run in the Side both Moon and RIP. Those two cards, along with my filtering should let me win a large number of games alone. RIP will answer things like Dredge, RUG Delver, Lands or Reanimator all on its own. Sure, I am playing an inactive deck, but if I can land a card and win, sucks to be you. Shit, throw in a Moat into the side of this Patriot deck and you have a lovely set of silver bullets that just destroy some decks. Yay interaction.

Oh and Miracles did that.

I don't mind chalice in the SB of decks, I am opposed to the fact that it exists as a semi-viable G1 strategy

So, if you expect the format to be heavily slanted in one direction you can play an answer? This is not exactly news. I mean, right now you could show up to an event with Blue Moon and I think you would do more damage than you would with Chalice. The format is so imbreed around 3 or 4 colour decks that use DRS to cover their stability that you could wipe them out with a card.

Maybe I am being too nitpicky but targeting decks with 4+ colors using a card that costs 3 mana doesn't seem comparable to neutering every single spell that costs 1.

As for critical thought, people play SnT at big events without much complaint. Let's not pretend a lot of thought is needed to win an event.

If we determine by a certain metric that Chalice is not good for the format then maybe by the same arguments there are other cards that are not good for the format, sure.

No, it's more a situation of "Hey I have the answer to your deck". People are just pissed the answer is so effective. What does it matter if the answer is Force for Dread Return or a Chalice for your cantrips? The fact is we are arguing that a card shuts down a large percentage of a single kind of deck without asking why that is even an option in the first place.

Fact is, Chalice is getting stronger only because of a race to the bottom. When I was playing Goblins in 09, the RUG players where not all that bothered by Chalice and more worried about Lackey. If you plan to play a deck that loses to a card that's your choice and something you have to accept. I run a playset of Enchantment removal in my sideboard for Bloodmoon and RIP. I accept I have a weakness and I try to amend that, I don't cry about the fact that I lose to Bloodmoon, RIP, Storm, Reanimator, SnT, Beltcher, Opps, Prelate, TNN...

Cards in legacy that cost a lot of mana are bad because of Pierce/Force/Daze/Stifle/Wasteland etc etc
As more sets get printed we get more good cards to choose from that cost less, i.e. 1
We replace the expensive cards with the new cards that cost 1
Decks now have more cards in them that cost 1
Why is this "a race to the bottom?"

If you are weak to a card, plan for it. I mean it's obvious that Chalice is a format warping issue, that's why Eldrazi has done nothing of note in months.

The problem is that 'plan for chalice' means what exactly? If I plan for Combo then I will want to play a blue deck.
If I plan for Sneak and Show then I will want to play Death and Taxes
If I plan to play against Chalice of the Void then I can play a shit deck with no 1 mana spells in it?

Of course you can argue that it's no different whether a deck gets hosed by Chalice or RIP or any other card but
a) Chalice locks you out when you are TRYING to play a minimally-exploitable less-powerful 'fair' strategy that can be interacted with on every other standard axis
b) Chalice is generally played in shells with minimal opportunity for decision making or interaction that don't contribute much to what I think makes legacy enjoyable
c) There isn't any way to strategically avoid it except by increasing your mana curve and making your deck significantly worse against everything else

[Nielsie]

Why do decks that plan on playing an interactive normal magic need a 1-card way to be shut out of the game?

What is interactive normal magic in Legacy?? Nothing is normal magic in Legacy, everything is busted... Is it because your cards are blue it's suddenly normal magic?

Cards in legacy that cost a lot of mana are bad because of Pierce/Force/Daze/Stifle/Wasteland etc etc

So what? How is this different from saying: Cards in legacy that cost one mana are bad because of Chalice/Thalia/Trinisphere/Sphere of Resistence etc etc

If you build your deck full of 1 mana cantrips just live with the fact it can be hated out. It isn't any different from any other strategy. Why would super-efficient-1-mana-cantrips.deck be allowed to live without any hate cards while graveyard strategies, artefact strategies, land strategies, etc. all should have hate cards? I really don't get this. Well actually I do, but it's absurd, it's because some spikes think that the only correct way to play magic is to use blue cantrips and counters... Magic is more than just blue cantrips, it's just that blue cantrips is heavily protected against any possible bans while all other strategies have to face being banned or drown in hatecards...