All B/R update speculation.

[Zilla]

If I was to take this thread information, I think I should stick to the poll who says 8%?

The 8% is misleading because you could only select one option of the 10 presented. So 8% of those polled believed it was the most bannable card of those 10. The poll was also closed almost ten years ago, so it's not really reflective of current thinking in any way. Realistically, I wouldn't be surprised if 30-40% of this site's users were pro-Brainstorm ban. (FWIW, I'm not among them, although I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a Fetchland ban.)

Also, I don't remember whom (it's been years), but I distinctly recall more than one pro player expressing surprise that Brainstorm wasn't banned in Legacy, pointing out that it's banned or restricted in every other format, and opining that it's far and away the strongest card in the format. That certainly doesn't make a consensus, but I don't think it's entirely fringe thinking either.

[Mr. Safety]

The 8% is misleading because you could only select one option of the 10 presented. So 8% of those polled believed it was the most bannable card of those 10. The poll was also closed almost ten years ago, so it's not really reflective of current thinking in any way. Realistically, I wouldn't be surprised if 30-40% of this site's users were pro-Brainstorm ban. (FWIW, I'm not among them, although I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a Fetchland ban.)

Also, I don't remember whom (it's been years), but I distinctly recall more than one pro player expressing surprise that Brainstorm wasn't banned in Legacy, pointing out that it's banned or restricted in every other format, and opining that it's far and away the strongest card in the format. That certainly doesn't make a consensus, but I don't think it's entirely fringe thinking either.

For the most part, the local legacy community I'm involved in simply accepts that Brainstorm will always be in the format, but we all know it's bonkers.

[BirdsOfParadise]

In my personal experience of real tournaments I never encountered someone seriously suggesting a brainstorm ban.

So? Are we to assume that you have been polling your opponents?

If I were your opponent, I would be unlikely to volunteer my opinions on the ban list, and therefore you would have no idea what they were unless you specifically asked.

[kirkusjones]

Getting a "ban brainstorm" discussion going during tournament play seems like a fun way to mindgame your opponent into sloppy plays and unfocused, emotional decision making. Potentially mentioning brainstorm could be enough to tilt the game in your favor, let alone running it in your deck. When a card is so powerful even discussing it can weight that outcome of a game in your favor (theoretically), it is undisputedly the most skill intensive spell in the game.

[Kanti]

What is this fetchland ban infatuation? Shocklands people.... shocklands.

[Fox]

What is this fetchland ban infatuation? Shocklands people.... shocklands.

There is plenty of content over the last few pages to answer this question. In terms of why such a burst of discussion, that happened because a small group disagreed that Fetchlands are among the most broken engine cards in legacy. Not that you can just ban them and it'll all be ok (price issues from RL), just not even admitting they're a problem at all. This is an important realization if you want to talk about Brainstorm/DRS/delve/thresh style cards, these are all symptoms of Fetchlands to differing degrees rather than single card problems.

Not really sure what you're on about with Shocklands, but assuming you're saying people could augment duals with shocks, yes that is an option. The key though is that pretty much no deck in legacy is skipping Fetchlands for mana producers (that don't thin libraries) unless they're on Cavern/Vial or Sol Lands. Among the only exception here is LED Dredge, which is quite fringe and not a consistently high performing deck. So yes there are shocks, but the whole point is that deck differentiation is not beginning at the mana base as long as Fetchlands are legal - this is the frustration.

[Tittliewinks22]

...Fetchlands are among the most broken engine cards in legacy...

Wrong!

Obviously the most broken cards are Earthcraft, Mind Twist and Frantic Search!

:(

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

I think it’s safe to say engine no longer has any meaning, the word is dead. Inform it’s relatives.

[Zilla]

I think it’s safe to say engine no longer has any meaning, the word is dead. Inform it’s relatives.

I know you're being facetious, but seriously, Fetchlands + Brainstorm = card quality filter engine, by definition:

Engine: A card or combination of cards which produce a powerful, often repeatable, effect, which does not win the game outright on its own, but is effective in “powering” other strategies.

[talpa]

seriously, Fetchlands + Brainstorm = card quality filter engine, by definition:
Engine: A card or combination of cards which produce a powerful, often repeatable, effect, which does not win the game outright on its own, but is effective in “powering” other strategies.

Dear Zilla, I hope you don't expect I'd shut up just because a moderator shows up. You are smart enough to add the word "often", but the key question is that an engine must be repeatable. I already pointed out this. Life From the Loam can go on by itself, PFire+Groves can go on an "infinite" amount of times, but once your brainstorm is cast and your fetchland cracked, the elusive "engine" is gone forever, until you draw another brainstorm and another fetch.
Of course cantrips help you find more cantrips in general, but that's just a way in which you can build your deck, like turbo-xerox, it's definetly not an engine, the key exactly being it's NOT self-replaceable, it's NOT indefinitely repeatable.

I know I am nitpicking a word but if you haven't noticed, MrSafety reproved me on the choice of my words when I said that the ban-fetchland bandwagon is carrying on an agenda, which is the old same war against brainstorm, because he said it

is an observation, maybe a prediction, definitely speculation, but not an agenda

Now, I suppose that when you propose an action, you make a prediction on what you expect would be the future development, and you state this consequences would be good, I'd say this is the definition of agenda.

The 8% is misleading because you could only select one option of the 10 presented. So 8% of those polled believed it was the most bannable card of those 10. (...) I wouldn't be surprised if 30-40% of this site's users were pro-Brainstorm ban

Of course the 8% is misleading because 192 voters mean nothing in terms of statistical representativeness. (I'm pretty sure I read "Multiple Choice Poll", I hope this could be fixed to avoid misleading the reader).

I also wouldn't be surprised if 30% of this site users would be pro-Brainstorm ban, I'd also expect 60% of this thread inhabitants; still I think the reality of the community of Legacy regular players is drastically different, and that's precisely the reason I started posting (by the way @BirdsOfParadise, I don't question my opponent, but do you have the concept of a "community"? I know directly a few hundreds of people playing legacy that I encounter regularly when I travel across my country for tournament attendance, and even with people that we haven't met, we tend to meet in groups between a turn and the other, you know, smoking together, speaking together, eating together... it's called real life).

Of course I don't pretend my personal experience to be of statistical significance either; still I know just a single person who complains about brainstorm, the reason is that he is a skilled player but he stubbornly refuses to play blue, and even him never dared to propose a brainstorm ban, let alone fetchlands.

From my past experience as a moderator I suffer seeing a vocal minority overthrow the sanity of a forum, and I think for some years now this very thing (I mean, the fact that the only people who continue to post are of a certain mind) has started to reflect on the quality of the forum in general (and this thread in particular, of course). Yes, I am arrogant, still that's what I think.

pretty sure the point of this thread at this point is to provide a Dumpster for certain posters to live in so they don't clutter up virtually every other constructive discussion on this site with their unfounded idiocy and personal vendettas (show me on the doll where the Brainstorm touched you!) (...)
Back when there was constructive discussion and speculation, it was an interesting place, but now it's just MTG-flavored bum fights. If there was a requirement that you had a sanctioned game in an event with more than 8 people in the last year to keep posting to the site, half of this thread would be dead.

For the most part, the local legacy community I'm involved in simply accepts that Brainstorm will always be in the format, but we all know it's bonkers.

Just to be clear, I never said Brainstorm is garbage

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)

I am very surprised to see that it took years to have a fresh angle and discover that brainstorm is good in conjunction with fetchland. If this is really the situation, I think this again speaks of the quality of the discussion.

There is plenty of content over the last few pages [reasons that support the fetchland ban]. In terms of why such a burst of discussion, that happened because a small group disagreed that Fetchlands are among the most broken engine cards in legacy (...) but the whole point is that deck differentiation is not beginning at the mana base as long as Fetchlands are legal - this is the frustration.

So you are saying that the discussion is fine as long as nobody disagrees with you?
The "small group who disagrees" happens to be people tired of seeing craziness all over the thread who indipendently decided to intervene, I suppose in order to try to stop all this foolishness (a purpose with no hope of succeeding, of course). I personally decided to start posting after I saw Lemnear saying that what he says is undebatable and irrefutable, an Holy Truth.
As for the elusive "number of reasons" which should support the ban, I already answered here: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...=1#post1051138
I haven't found anything but one, "fetchlands are time consuming because of shuffling"

Now you add "mana bases differentiation". I gladly answer to this.
1) even if it was true, who cares? if you get frustrated by this, seriously dude, start caring about your healtiness more than you spend time caring about the healtiness of the format
2) As I said, if you can't see the differentiation between (just as an example) a canadian-threshold manabase and an aggro-loam manabase, I think that the problem is not fetchlands but your poor eyesight
3) Manabase differentiations speaks of nothing in regards to metagame differentiation.

I'll repeat again, and again: the only reason to support a fetchland ban is not their strength (they are, but this doesn't matter by itself), or an effect on reducing the number of decks that are playable because of them (they do quite the opposite), nor it is something "objective". It's a subjective preference for mono and bi-colored manabases, an hate for brainstorm and blue in general, and a desire to see tier2 decks arise by killing the current tiers.

[Fox]

So you are saying that the discussion is fine as long as nobody disagrees with you?

What I was saying was actually "this is what you can expect to read about over the last few pages" directed towards @Kanti. The rest of this topic has been beaten to death over the last few pages.

I don't mind disagreements as long as they are reasonable (such as the previous Blood Moon vs historical experience says it's fine vs probably need to look at Ancient Tomb at some point discussion). You keep trying to point out that Fetchlands make the format diverse @talpa, yet they don't b/c everything that reliably top 8s are overwhelmingly Fetchland users, while the minority of decks using lands which produce mana (no thinning) are exclusively Cavern/Vial or Sol Land. This isn't about tiers, it's about diversity - Fetchlands decrease diversity (which ideally should begin at the manabase level). They are the wheel, stop pretending the spokes cause this phenomenon. Your arguments are disjointed, tangential, and essentially random/emotional - and they have to be because the data that shows otherwise is overwhelming in this case. Your only point is to distract from the simple truth that lands which thin without any real drawback (i.e. drawbacks that lead to dips in win % that drive change away from their model) pushed out almost every non-thinning land approach to legacy; this is inherently not diverse.

Disagree with the stuff above and you're disagreeing with data @talpa, not with me. Diversity is one of the key metrics I use to assess cards as it leads to increasing/sustaining the player base of the format. Your arguments are opposed to diversity because you refuse step back from the Fetchland tunnel-vision. Try not to confuse the artificial financial realities which force legacy to exist within the context of Fetchlands with what the format could be if we actually could ban the *only* best way to start a reliably competitive manabase (again outside of narrow Cavern/Vial and Sol Land strategies) to create actual diversity.

[talpa]

I don't mind disagreements as long as they are reasonable (...)
Disagree with the stuff above and you're disagreeing with data @talpa, not with me. Diversity is one of the key metrics I use

No, I'm not disagreeing with data. As somebody pointed out, it's the interpretation of the data that is NOT objective.
Fetchlands are very common in decklists? Of course! Never denied that. Simply said that NUMBERS BY THEMSELVES DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.
Do they are "strong"? of course!
Does this mean that deck diversity is hindered? of course not.

Since having fetchland allows MORE manabases playable than you could build being restricted to two-colors, I disagree that banning them could increase the number of decks playble.
Maybe, MAYBE, this kind of ban could hit current tiers... I think that's what someone hopes, I think those are deluding themselves because I suppose cantrip shells would still be stronger.

YOU
CANNOT
ARBITRARILY
DIVIDE
DECKS
IN
A FETCHLAND-GROUP
AND
A NON-FETCHLAND GROUP

since fetchland-group would contain a thousand different decks which don't have anything in common in the manabase and even less so in which archetype they do belong and which their gameplan is.


by the way, fetchland don't thin your deck in a sensible way, that's a myth debunked many times, please acknowledge that
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/...ning-is-a-myth

[MorphBerlin]

There is plenty of content over the last few pages to answer this question. In terms of why such a burst of discussion, that happened because a small group disagreed that Fetchlands are among the most broken engine cards in legacy. Not that you can just ban them and it'll all be ok (price issues from RL), just not even admitting they're a problem at all. This is an important realization if you want to talk about Brainstorm/DRS/delve/thresh style cards, these are all symptoms of Fetchlands to differing degrees rather than single card problems.

Not really sure what you're on about with Shocklands, but assuming you're saying people could augment duals with shocks, yes that is an option. The key though is that pretty much no deck in legacy is skipping Fetchlands for mana producers (that don't thin libraries) unless they're on Cavern/Vial or Sol Lands. Among the only exception here is LED Dredge, which is quite fringe and not a consistently high performing deck. So yes there are shocks, but the whole point is that deck differentiation is not beginning at the mana base as long as Fetchlands are legal - this is the frustration.

"Broken" in the context of powerful does not automatically lead to being a problem in a format like legacy.

On the long list of broken stuff and powerful engines existing in legacy I don't see Fetchands as a major offender tbh. They are powerful yes, but in my opinion neither the mana fixing nor the gy filling push them even close to the edge of bannable. The BS+Fetchland interaction is one of the more powerful things you can do in legacy yes, but so are 10 other things that nobody talks about banning.

[Lemnear]

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.

Ponder is just next in line after Brainstorm and before Preordain. That's the sole reason I never bought the "ban brainstorm" approach of just moving blue card selection from BS+Ponder to Ponder+Preordain. It's a nerf, but one not fundamentally undermining the blue cores advantage. Even if you remove Ponder as BS seems to be in fact a holy cow, you end up with BS+Preordain. That's no real difference. You just go from sieving through 4 cards to 3 "only".

Edit:

The BS+Fetchland interaction is one of the more powerful things you can do in legacy yes, but so are 10 other things that nobody talks about banning.

Because the other things don't scratch the 81% mark like BS+Ponder+Fetch had at their absolute top.

--------------

The major point of disagreement appears to be, if the formats absolute linear approach to card quality enhancement and manabase building isn't proof of a lack of viable diversity itself (Of course there are more layers like powerlevels of cards related to fetches, ban talk, time concerns, etc which are just adding up).

I think its both fair to consider it a problem as it is to look at it as the formats identity/feature/cornerstone. However, what's partly going on in this thead looks more like people taking personal offense by the mere suggestion/approach on an evergreen topic.

[MorphBerlin]

Now you add "mana bases differentiation". I gladly answer to this.
1) even if it was true, who cares? if you get frustrated by this, seriously dude, start caring about your healtiness more than you spend time caring about the healtiness of the format
2) As I said, if you can't see the differentiation between (just as an example) a canadian-threshold manabase and an aggro-loam manabase, I think that the problem is not fetchlands but your poor eyesight
3) Manabase differentiations speaks of nothing in regards to metagame differentiation.

I'll repeat again, and again: the only reason to support a fetchland ban is not their strength (they are, but this doesn't matter by itself), or an effect on reducing the number of decks that are playable because of them (they do quite the opposite), nor it is something "objective". It's a subjective preference for mono and bi-colored manabases, an hate for brainstorm and blue in general, and a desire to see tier2 decks arise by killing the current tiers.

Well said. Saying that fetchlands reduce diversity because most manabases are built with them is really a new kind of crazy even for the regulars of this threat.

[Watersaw]

YOU
CANNOT
ARBITRARILY
DIVIDE
DECKS
IN
A FETCHLAND-GROUP
AND
A NON-FETCHLAND GROUP

Why not? You either play fetchlands, play a mono-colored deck, or you're wrong. This isn't about thinning, it's about having perfect mana on-command and the incidental benefits of shuffling.

[Mr Miagi]

I don't know why I even follow this thread anymore.. but for the sake of my sanity and not losing all hope in humanity can you stop with this retarded debate on banning fetchlands? It's not going to happen and more importantly it shouldn't happen.

So... keep the debate civil and discuss banning Brainstorm.. jk.. just kill this thread with fire, before it lays eggs.

[talpa]

YOU
CANNOT
ARBITRARILY
DIVIDE
DECKS
IN
A FETCHLAND-GROUP
AND
A NON-FETCHLAND GROUP

Why not?

because it's an arbitrary division with no grounds that disregards more relevant differences by completely ignoring them.
An aggro deck, a combo deck, a control deck would be all the same with this kind of reasoning.
It's like aggregating black horses and black cats under the label "black" and white horses and white cats under the label "white".

Technically may not be wrong, but I'd say that dividing them under "horses" and "cats" is more relevant.

[MorphBerlin]

Why not? You either play fetchlands, play a mono-colored deck, or you're wrong. This isn't about thinning, it's about having perfect mana on-command and the incidental benefits of shuffling.

Coming to you live in the BR-Threat after the fetchland ban: Lands are clearly limiting the diversity in legacy, Oops, all Spells, Belcher and Manaless Dredge are pushed down by all these deck that are the same because they play lands.

BTW, which non monocolored decks do not run duals? So they are also harming diversity by that logic?

[Watersaw]

because it's an arbitrary division with no grounds that disregards more relevant differences by completely ignoring them.
An aggro deck, a combo deck, a control deck would be all the same with this kind of reasoning.
It's like aggregating black horses and black cats under the label "black" and white horses and white cats under the label "white".

Technically may not be wrong, but I'd say that dividing them under "horses" and "cats" is more relevant.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Take any deck with a fetchland manabase and replace them with whatever duals you want. The deck will be worse 100% of the time. You need them to compete.