View Poll Results: Most bannable card in Legacy? (not that they will touch it)

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • Brainstorm

    16 8.33%
  • Force of Will

    4 2.08%
  • Lion's Eye Diamond

    35 18.23%
  • Counterbalance

    34 17.71%
  • Sensei's Divining Top

    103 53.65%
  • Tarmogoyf

    46 23.96%
  • Phyrexian Dreadnaught

    2 1.04%
  • Goblin Lackey

    4 2.08%
  • Standstill

    6 3.13%
  • Natural Order

    8 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1005 of 1178 FirstFirst ... 5505905955995100110021003100410051006100710081009101510551105 ... LastLast
Results 20,081 to 20,100 of 23542

Thread: All B/R update speculation.

  1. #20081
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    [1] There is already a marginal card quality improvement that happens each time you crack a Fetch; just by playing lands that pull out a second land, your deck is ahead statistically. The more obvious aspect is the perfect mana tutoring. This is better draws on average + better fixing (lower variance for time cards sit in hand waiting for a color req) + less chance of interactive variance (susceptibility to Wasteland, etc...) + zero loss of speed. That is too much power, by itself, for a deck with mana producing lands to overcome (exceptions for Sol Land and Chalice/Vial) within legacy's competitive timing window - I'm not even hitting on the implications of shuffles and land in yard yet.

    The syntax you used there is confusing, so I'm not sure that answers the question you intended to ask. If you were talking about Cavern/Vial and Sol Land as preying upon non-Fetchland, then that's a hard point to make since non-Fetchland decks don't exist competitively. This nonexistence has everything to do with those potential manabases just winning more games if they decide to run Fetchlands. I think "play Fetchlands, you'll win more games" is not a contentious statement due to data (again talking about decks without Sol Land or Cavern/Vial).
    I didn't ask a question. Your presupposition though is that Fetchlands decrease diversity in mana bases. This is probably true, for obvious and previously stated reasons. What it doesn't mean, a priori, and what I have seen no evidence to prove, is that no fetchlands would mean mana bases would become meaningfully more diverse, unless "more diverse" is simply code for "not containing fetchlands." Now, what "meaningful" means in that sentence is a very big operationalization, however, no matter how we define it, be % of metagame, or what have you, the fact is that the format without fetchlands would then homogenize around whatever the next best option is. Which will, inevitably, mean a reduction of diversity once solved. So, in the fetchland banned Legacy, the decks best able to capitalize on the presence of, run optimally, and cast spells in light of the greater variance of fetch-less mana bases will be T1. Again, what evidence do we have to suggest these decks are more diverse than the number of decks we have currently with fetches?

    That is a question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    [2] Yes, DnT uses one of the currently three competitive mana engines in legacy; however, we have never seen it in action against non-Fetchland/non-self/non-Sol Land decks. It might actually be fine, or we might have to take a more serious look at the mana-cheating power of Vial. As discussed earlier, Mox Diamond is probably the first card you have to scrutinize after a potential Fetchland ban.
    So we ban fetches to make some cards worse, make mana bases worse, make some cards better and other cards overpowered? What have we really accomplished then? Simply traded the old boss for the new boss? Are we just looking to make changes for change's sake?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    [3]When you risk topdecking non-perfect mana sources, deckbuilding must account for those occurrences with card selection. The cards these lands are providing mana for have to be selected for fulfilling a role and also providing contingencies which justify the manabase at work. If you want to see examples of Fetch-less mana bases being less oppressive, look at how little of the meta share actually goes to Cavern/Vial and Sol Land versus Fetchland decks.
    Right, but I mean, it's a nerf across the board though. We know that fetches increase consistency and consistency wins games over time. Sol Land bases are not as consistant as fetches. But banning fetches means Sol Lands are likely better than the alternative. Again, I fail to see the compelling reason why this necessarily engenders a rise in diversity overall though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    [4] The definition of optimal tools are generally less-shared between distinct manabase engines. Let's again look at Sol Land and Cavern/Vial, they use different pools of optimal cards because the implications of their mana engine demands it.
    OK. But again, if we have no fetches, all fetch-dependent cards are much worse and all mana producing dependent cards are better. Not sure this is diversity. Rather, swapping one for the other. Now, instead of fetch-dependent cards being dominant, mana producing dependent cards are. How is this increasing diversity? It's just supplanting one for the other.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  2. #20082
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    Isn't the core lesson of the DRS meta, that there is no reason to settle on mono-, bi- or tri-color decks, if your manabase easily supports 4 colors without automatically folding to Wasteland/Bloodmoon/Back2Basics?
    Yes, but it's a big "IF". Also, yes, except
    1) deathrite was banned
    2) 4 color decks still folded to bloodmoon and b2b
    3) as I said, just as an example, UW miracle was a thing even in a 4c delver meta.

  3. #20083

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    Sure, if you think patronizing is worse than foolishness.





    I wasn't referring to you in particular.
    By the way, to refer to things like skullclamps is a wrong analogy since it's a single card, whereas intervening on the manabase would cause a far more disruptive change.

    Anyway, if the cards available for the manabases allow anything from 1 up to 4 colours, the available combinations are 5 monocoloured, 10 bicolored, 10 tricolored and 5 fourcoloured, for a total of 30 combinations. In a world of this kind nothing stops you from playing LESS colours, and you can't state that the maximum number of colours would always be the strongest (thus pushing out strategies with less colors). On the contrary, of course, if you have less color available you can't build decks with MORE.

    If the cards available for the manabases allow anything from 1 to 3, the total would be of 25.
    If the maximum is two colours, the total decreases to 15.

    Not that it matters so much (since in my view the numbers of possible decks goes way beyond the number of color it can play), but if you want to be wrong about combinations, I can't stop you.






    It seems there are reasons to patronize when most people lacks in basic arithmetics. You're forgetting that when you can play xyz nobody forbids you to play xy,xz,yz and build a competitive deck with that. It's not like UW miracle couldn't be a thing in a world of 4c delvers.




    To try again to go to great lenghts to find a sense in why you are forgetting that in a world of 4coloured decks there CAN exist decks with less colours, I'll suppose you are still shocked by the recent past where decks like czech pile were tier1. Apart from the fact that tri- and two-colored decks were played even in this metagame, I'd like to remind you that we JUST had a ban that should severly reduce decks ability to play 4 colours, so maybe you can all just wait a while and see what happens before starting proposing fetchland bans
    Skullclamp was a fine analogy for disproving the principle you espoused, which is that any reduction in the format size aimed at increasing diversity is inherently so contradictory that it must be trolled. The principle is incorrect. Bans can sometimes increase diversity because the number of viable combinations is what counts.

    The combinatorics example was also sufficient to disprove the incorrect principle that weakening fixing must necessarily reduce diversity. Sometimes the most viable or dominant strategies have four or even five colors. Have you never known a cube manager to remove vivid lands from the cube to weaken four- and five-color control and promote the viability of other options? Now, as I said, i don't see diversity as a simple matter of combinatorics. We agree on that. I used the example because, again, instead of investigating how the format might look under a hypothetical assumption, you invoked a bizarre principle that was trivial to disprove, implying that the principle was so self-evident that a contrary position demanded derision. As you will recall from your studies in mathematics, disproof requires but one counterexample, and there are several.

    You mentioned that nothing should be banned until the metagame settles from the DRS ban. On this we are also agreed. However, a hiatus on banning is not the same as a hiatus on speculating on the impacts of hypothetical bans. If you personally wish not to discuss the Legacy ban list for the next 3 months or so, there are other threads on this forum. If, as I suspect, you love talking about hypothetical bans, you could try doing so in a way that doesn't make everyone want to tear their hair out.

  4. #20084
    Greatness awaits!
    Lemnear's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Location

    Berlin, Germany
    Posts

    6,998

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    You mentioned that nothing should be banned until the metagame settles from the DRS ban. On this we are also agreed. However, a hiatus on banning is not the same as a hiatus on speculating on the impacts of hypothetical bans.
    "Hiatus" is the keyword. We just move from one banning to the next for years now and I consider this approach fundamentally wrong. None of all the cards banned in recent years would have ever caused problems in my opinion, if the root of their power would have been ever adressed years ago. Heck, this whole thread would probably be dead , as Brainstorm would be a clunky af card to use without 8+ free demonic tutors for duals & Basics.
    www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!

    Join us at Facebook!

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon View Post
    Lemnear sounds harsh at times, but he means well. Or to destroy, but that's when he starts rapping.

    Architect by day, rapstar by night. He's pretty much the German Hannah Montana. Sometimes he even comes in like a wrecking ball.

  5. #20085
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    And while we are here discussing of proof by contradiction, we encounter fetchlands as solomoxen in one page, and the page after fetchlands as demonic tutors



    (I'd like to take credit for the image but unfortunately I can't)

  6. #20086

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Since my initial post, I've done some pretty exhaustive research and have come to a shocking conclusion: Talpa is Nedleeds.

    Just think about it for a second. Nedleeds gets banned for his stalwart crusade against the great blue scourge that has held this format in its filthy stranglehold of variance reduction since the introduction of fetchlands. His tireless work as the mouthpiece of the legacy resistance has taken its toll upon his psyche and caused it to splinter into two distinct and opposing personalities, Talpa and Nedleeds, which somehow retain the vitriol and recalcitrance of the original. The Talpa personality comes and trolls this thread from the exact perspective Nedleeds railed so stridently against in an effort to cause such turmoil and consternation that the community and the mods will be forced to #freenedleeds at which point Talpa will most likely cease to exist as the freedom from exile will allow the two personalities to merge and make our beloved anti-brainstorm crusader whole again.

    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    It's like arguing your way out of a speeding ticket by saying "it's not like I'm wearing oven mitts, officer."
    Twenty Kavus and a Dream is NOT a Legacy deck.

  7. #20087
    Foreign Black Border
    Lord_Mcdonalds's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2012
    Location

    Houston, Texas
    Posts

    753

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    Are we just looking to make changes for change's sake?
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by iatee View Post
    I still have a strong suspicion that if 'Thalia, Heretic Cathar' had been named 'Frank, Heretic Cathar', people would be a lot more skeptical of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goin Aggro View Post
    Ugh, there he goes again, talking about the girlfriend. We get it dude.

  8. #20088
    Greatness awaits!
    Lemnear's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Location

    Berlin, Germany
    Posts

    6,998

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    fetchlands as demonic tutors



    (I'd like to take credit for the image but unfortunately I can't)
    How about pointing out where you think I am wrong instead of just responding by calling others stupid? I mean...

    www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!

    Join us at Facebook!

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon View Post
    Lemnear sounds harsh at times, but he means well. Or to destroy, but that's when he starts rapping.

    Architect by day, rapstar by night. He's pretty much the German Hannah Montana. Sometimes he even comes in like a wrecking ball.

  9. #20089
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    Just pointing out that it's clear you have the capacity for civil conversation, but choose not to in many posts. You are a self-admitted troll, are you not? [Yes]
    As for others more worthy of mocking, I will disagree. Your approach from the very start was borderline patronizing [yes again, and you are even too polite if you add "borderline"]
    I'm curious. Can you please tell me, if you'd encounter an evidently coarse resounding nonsense, how would you choose to respond?
    Of course you can simply ignore it; you can waste your breath trying to explain why it's wrong; you can troll; etc. What would you do if, for example, someone started suggesting that if we restricted the lands you can use to build a manabase to basic mountains only the format diversity would improve?
    Mind you, not that it would be more fair, that they'd like it more, but indeed that the number of available deck would increase. Would you really start arguing or would you simply dismiss it with condescending attitude?
    (can we please stop with strawmen references? I am not saying someone suggested exactly that. The purpose of an exaggeration is to show more clearly why an argument is wrong or at least needs to be better stated with proper limits, evidences in support, etc)

    Do you happen to think, as apparently others do, that is reasonable to compare fetchlands with solomoxen?
    If not, how would you respond? Would you start from the basics concepts "one card draw for each turn, one mana for each turn"? Or would you revert to a pic (even when it's not a reference to Oz? )




    Quote Originally Posted by kirkusjones View Post
    Since my initial post, I've done some pretty exhaustive research and have come to a shocking conclusion: Talpa is Nedleeds
    I'm sorry, I don't know who this nedleeds is. Of course I suspect it is quite common for multiple personalities to ignore one the existence of the other?

  10. #20090

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    "Hiatus" is the keyword. We just move from one banning to the next for years now and I consider this approach fundamentally wrong. None of all the cards banned in recent years would have ever caused problems in my opinion, if the root of their power would have been ever adressed years ago. Heck, this whole thread would probably be dead , as Brainstorm would be a clunky af card to use without 8+ free demonic tutors for duals & Basics.
    On the contrary I think DTT and TC are busted even without fetches. Are you just throw out asumptions that support yourt argument and want them as base for the discussion because you see yourself as this all knowing genius?

    Side question: do you even play legacy anymore or even own any cards?

  11. #20091
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds View Post
    Yes.
    Well, at least someone had the gumption to actually just say what they want and why they want it. I respect that position. I don't agree with it, but I respect it.

    To me, it is the antithesis of what an Eternal Format should be and even more so, the antithesis of what should actually define Legacy.

    However, if you like forced rotations and it's ilk, well...

    EDIT: After a word and some coffee, it's plausible that Lord_Mcdonalds might not actually hold that position, but I'll still address it, even so.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  12. #20092
    Greatness awaits!
    Lemnear's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Location

    Berlin, Germany
    Posts

    6,998

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MorphBerlin View Post
    On the contrary I think DTT and TC are busted even without fetches. Are you just throw out asumptions that support yourt argument and want them as base for the discussion because you see yourself as this all knowing genius?

    Side question: do you even play legacy anymore or even own any cards?
    It's up to debate if TC and DTT stay strong without fetches ans nerfed cantrip shell. It's fine if you consider them still busted. I guess we'll won't find out if a post-fetch meta could bear them.

    Answers are:

    1) yes, mainly online, as I not only often work weekends but also late as surveyor for structural damage. I can do part of the work only if clients are at home.
    2) of course i do. I sold most non-blue stuff over the years as well as parting from the whole UW/Miracles cards. Still have all the BUGr colored stuff for decks ranging from delver to storm. I am recently defoiling certain stuff because its too much money in boxes otherwise. In general, i dont understand the question. Do i have to own 10 grand of fetches alone just to voice my concerns about WotCs beating around the bush with bannings?
    www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!

    Join us at Facebook!

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon View Post
    Lemnear sounds harsh at times, but he means well. Or to destroy, but that's when he starts rapping.

    Architect by day, rapstar by night. He's pretty much the German Hannah Montana. Sometimes he even comes in like a wrecking ball.

  13. #20093
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    I'm curious. Can you please tell me, if you'd encounter an evidently coarse resounding nonsense, how would you choose to respond?
    With persistence, although I would challenge the 'evidently' qualifier. It's actually ironic; if you look at my posts I'm fairly 'soft' on a fetchland ban, I engage because it's an interesting talking point. I originally dismissed the idea (as you began with), assuming it was nonsense, and then I read through the reasoning several folks put in here (Lemnear mostly.) I'm not saying their arguments are perfect, nor do I think they are nonsense. They live somewhere in the middle where it's an interesting possible future exercise.

    Of course you can simply ignore it; you can waste your breath trying to explain why it's wrong; you can troll; etc. What would you do if, for example, someone started suggesting that if we restricted the lands you can use to build a manabase to basic mountains only the format diversity would improve?
    That isn't the argument. The argument isn't to replace fetches with one single color of land (Island, Mountain, etc.) the argument is built around constructing the correct number of multi-color lands without the ability to have 10 or more lands in your deck that could be anything you need. Essentially the question is: should mana be perfect? This is how I see it on this particular point, as in it is separate from the free shuffle effect.

    Mind you, not that it would be more fair, that they'd like it more, but indeed that the number of available deck would increase. Would you really start arguing or would you simply dismiss it with condescending attitude?
    I'm really picking on details now, because how would Legacy, nay magic as a whole, be improved if we could only play Mountains, red spells, and colorless spells? I'm trying really hard to avoid my favorite fallacy reference here because I haven't seen anyone argue that only basic mountains should be allowed, nor anyone suggesting even only basic lands be allowed. I have seen arguments for forcing other dual-land options to be used, rainbow lands, drawback fetches (Evolving Wilds), but I haven't seen any arguments about replacing all non-basic lands with basics. Are you suggesting that banning fetches is as extreme as that? Do you believe banning fetches is the same as banning all dual lands?

    (can we please stop with strawmen references? I am not saying someone suggested exactly that. The purpose of an exaggeration is to show more clearly why an argument is wrong or at least needs to be better stated with proper limits, evidences in support, etc)
    I'm trying, but exaggeration isn't really helpful when it fundamentally changes the intent of the original point. Some of your exaggerations have redefined the original statements in a dishonest way. Exaggeration is fine if you maintain the original intent. Incredulity is just as unproductive. See above for how I feel the exaggeration changed the original intent.

    Do you happen to think, as apparently others do, that is reasonable to compare fetchlands with solomoxen?
    Not really. Fetches don't provide extra land drops in a turn, just perfect mana. For me one of the core arguments has always been: should mana be perfect? The other core argument being: should we have free shuffle effects that make some cards too good? From there we can discuss what those cards are, whether they really are too good with fetches, whether they are too good even without them, etc. There is an argument that in the absence of fetchlands, whould Mox Saphire (et al) be safe to include in the format for color fixing? On a scale from broken to fair, I would at first glance say it is much closer to broken. I'm curious what kind of reasoning someone would bring for allowing that to happen. It would be a productive discussion as long as nobody comes running shouting how foolish the original premise sounds, because that doesn't even allow discourse to move forward.

    If not, how would you respond?
    I think I just did, sorry if I went out of order.

    Would you start from the basics concepts "one card draw for each turn, one mana for each turn"? Or would you revert to a pic (even when it's not a reference to Oz? )
    No, I would narrow the field to the particular argument being placed and let it stand or fall on its own merit. If someone misrepresents a point, I will be quick to point that out because it isn't progressing the discussion. It's misrepresenting it and attacking it in spots that don't exist.

    #freenedleeds
    Last edited by Mr. Safety; 07-19-2018 at 08:50 AM.
    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

  14. #20094
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    Exaggeration is fine if you maintain the original intent
    Thank you for you answer, I sincerely appreciate the tone.

    Evidently you are more tolerant than I am. Although, I have the impression you aren't equally magnanimous... to be fair, it seems to me that you are less tolerant with mine exaggerations than you are with others (isn't comparing a fetch with demonic tutor an exaggeration too? and a pretty big one, I'd say)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    I originally dismissed the idea assuming it was nonsense, and then I read through the reasoning several folks put in here (Lemnear mostly)
    Sorry to hear they were able to brainwash you (come on, we can't seriously discuss all the time, let me joke)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    If someone misrepresents a point, I will be quick to point that out because it isn't progressing the discussion
    I think that's exactly why I started posting in this thread: point out how among many ban-suggesters (I'd say the majority of them) there were plenty of misrepresentations. I think you have the skillset needed to see where they weren't completely honest, whether they were doing that on purpose or unconsciously, but I haven't found you so quick in pointing out that.

    Here I tried to collect every argument "in favour" of the ban and I answered to each and everyone. Your quote actually is among the few worth considering, although even you didn't resist inserting brainstorm in the reasoning, which is quite out-of-place if we are to discuss fetchlands "per se" (unless we are trying to discuss "how can we disempower brainstorm, when we can't simply ban it?").

    I don't believe I was dishonest ever. I just tried to highlight some implicit consequences in what other said (or in the way they said it).
    It's not a fiction of mine that someone, while proposing to discuss fetchland ban, hoped (speculated? foresaw?) that the metagame could evolve towards a bigger presence of two-colored deck and at the same time asserted that because of that the diversity would increase.

    Now, even if it were true I'd refuse to see this as a good thing, and that's subjective; but more importantly I strongly state that those two statement are self-contradictory and that's the part I insist on. The burden of the proof is on the one who is making the claim, and I haven't seen any evidence at all (while on the contrary it seems evident that the more strict the manabase the more narrow what you can competitively build upon it).

    Also, I (and many others) challenged many times the definition of diversity, trying to outline the difference between metagame diversity (ex. number of archetypes, number of decks) and "manabase diversity". We asked why the latter should matter and what it even should be. It seems to me that nobody even tried to answer. Many behaved as though they weren't able to understand what we were underlying, as though they couldn't grasp the difference between the two concepts. (I confess that in this situation I tend to my troll side; simply because it's unfair if I take in consideration "my opponent" statements but he won't).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    The core arguments has always been: should mana be perfect?
    Actually the problem is that not everybody was as clear as you in stating the questions; and also that it seems that everyone of the ban supporters has his own version of what the "core question" should be.
    Anyway, picking on the details, I think I should challenge the 'perfect' qualifier
    I think that while blood moon, stifle, wasteland, and other "counterweights" exist, "greedy" manabases will always be challenged, the greedier the manabase the harder the pressure on it. Let this be also an answer to the hypothetical exaggeration represented by the free-three-color-fetchland.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    The other core argument being: should we have free shuffle effects that make some cards too good?
    Now it's the turn to challenge the qualifier "too" in the expression "too good".
    Too good according to whom?
    What cards are we trying to make "less" good?
    Who says that they wouldn't be good without fetchlands?
    Who says that even if that was the case, we should accept fetchlands' ban as "collateral damage"?

    You acknowledge that we should then discuss this. The reason I started posting was that when someone showed disagreement, he was attacked as if those arguments were undisputable (and again, you didn't seem so quick to stop those kind of arrogance; maybe arrogance is more or less annoying accordingly to what it is directed against).

    I'd say that point 2) could hide some kind of prejudice against certain well known suspects (now this is dishonest, unless explicitly admitted) and my answer to point 3) is that all evidence suggests that cantrips are more than enough to make delve still a broken mechanic (and I think you agree) and there would still be plenty of shuffle opportunities.

    In short, I'd summarize the entire so called "evidence" supporting fetchlands' ban as "listing a long series of weak, unlikely hypothesis doesn't make a proof".


    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    The argument for banning fetch lands is that we'd move from the current location on the diversity vs power level graph to a location that is close in power level (a bit lower), more diverse, and still recognizably Legacy
    I chose this quote not only because I think it's worth replying, but also because I think this should highlight why I repeat that there is plenty of fallacies in the arguments. They are a kind of petitio principii (I hope it's understandable in english, I'm the italian version of nedleeds after all).
    They contain in their premises what they should instead prove.

    I'm not (only) saying that I don't see the need to move the positioning on that graph; I'm not (only) saying that I don't see a reason why I should enjoy more the (hypothetical) new position; I'm saying that it was never shown why the new position should be "close" in power level, nor "still recognizably legacy", and most of all why should it be "more diverse" (lacking of definition of diversity notwithstanding).

  15. #20095
    Member

    Join Date

    Aug 2015
    Location

    The woods again
    Posts

    1,096

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    Also, I (and many others) challenged many times the definition of diversity, trying to outline the difference between metagame diversity (ex. number of archetypes, number of decks) and "manabase diversity". We asked why the latter should matter and what it even should be. It seems to me that nobody even tried to answer. Many behaved as though they weren't able to understand what we were underlying, as though they couldn't grasp the difference between the two concepts. (I confess that in this situation I tend to my troll side; simply because it's unfair if I take in consideration "my opponent" statements but he won't).
    I know I'm not the guy you were talking to, and I've been avoiding responding to this thread assiduously for a while now, but having spent way too much time in this thread over the last couple of years, you won't get a straight answer out of them if you haven't gotten it already.

    On this (if on little else), Dice and I agree: the arguments on both sides of Brainstorm, fetchlands, Delver of Secrets, etc. have been made before and they've changed very, very little over several years. You're right: there is no valid argument for "color balance." That doesn't mean we're going to persuade people who don't feel that way, but it also doesn't mean their concerns aren't valid in part.

    The thing that bothers me the most about the stridency of some of the arguments in this thread is that they're dealing with unknowns. We don't know whether card diversity will increase or decrease if fetchlands disappear or if Brainstorm gets banned. (For that matter, I think few people predicted a metagame of Oath of the Gatewatch: the Miraculous Chalicening after Deathrite and Probe left. I still maintain neither card did anything wrong in the face of lockpieces.) What we do know is that axing Brainstorm or fetches would neuter or outright remove a number of well-established decks for which there are no real analogues—many of which stand between All Spells and the rest of the format.

    I sincerely admire your dedication, but there's something Sisyphean about arguing with the "card diversity" crowd. They have yet to give a satisfactory answer for what would happen if Wizards decided card popularity was the main criterion for bans, not to mention for how they'd handle fast-combo if all the Force decks took a big hit.
    All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
    PM me if you want to contribute!
    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    Just in time for Valentines Day 💝

    Roses are red, violets are blue
    Omae wa mou shindeiru
    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    Quick question, are you also still waiting for the great pumpkin it did you finally pick it in once December hit?
    Quote Originally Posted by iatee View Post
    I am tired of malicious top 8s and it is time to put an end to the practice.

  16. #20096

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Please, stop discussing fetchlands. It's the most brain-dead idea I have ever heard of. Ban duals, force people to run Ravnica duals. Problem solved mana-investment wise, Legacy just got probably double the player base overnight, no more reprint problems, your outdoor cat might finally come home to say what's up, etc. Why on Earth would you ban fetchlands when you could ban duals and breath some life into the format? Legacy players love to lament, and they always lament that "true aggro" is dead. Good luck cracking fetchlands with PoP hiding behind every corner.

    edit: oh and BS/fetch is still possible, at a price though.

  17. #20097
    Greatness awaits!
    Lemnear's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Location

    Berlin, Germany
    Posts

    6,998

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    how they'd handle fast-combo if all the Force decks took a big hit.
    This argument is disturbingly similar to the Bloodmoon one imo. You are not losing to combo or Bloodmoon just because some free shuffle/tutoring effects are removed in a hypothetical scenario.
    www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!

    Join us at Facebook!

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon View Post
    Lemnear sounds harsh at times, but he means well. Or to destroy, but that's when he starts rapping.

    Architect by day, rapstar by night. He's pretty much the German Hannah Montana. Sometimes he even comes in like a wrecking ball.

  18. #20098
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    @talpa:

    There's a ton of good discussion material in your post. The tone of our dialogue has shifted dramatically. I'll try and piecemeal a response that isn't confusing.

    Evidently you are more tolerant than I am.
    With users that have been contributing to the source a long time, yes. It may be a veiled form of the halo effect, but I see it for what it is. I tend to take people more seriously if they have more activity on this forum. Maybe I see it as having more experience with legacy in general?

    Although, I have the impression you aren't equally magnanimous... to be fair, it seems to me that you are less tolerant with mine exaggerations than you are with others)
    I'm guessing it was the tone you used, paired with your low post count. Again, I realize this isn't a reasonable metric, but then again, we aren't talking about truly important facts of the world. We're talking about a game. This has been stated by me several times, that the nature of this game causes boundaries to be unclear. It is by nature subjective because there aren't concrete definitions of harm, good, healthy, fun, or diverse (to list a few examples.) So I go back to tone: why so abrasive when, at the end of the day, it's a game to enjoy? I have a habit of meeting people where they are, in terms of tone and communication style. If someone is blunt, I'll be blunt. If someone is subtle, I will (attempt to) be subtle. I try not to be disrespectful, but then my sarcasm steps in and I put my foot in my mouth.

    I think the changed tone of our responses to each other qualifies as magnanimous, but take of that what you will.

    (isn't comparing a fetch with demonic tutor an exaggeration too? and a pretty big one, I'd say
    Functionally, no it is not. It's a card that searches your library and makes that card available to you. Yes it is narrowed down to only lands, which is why I think the argument seems ludicrous. Is it an exaggeration? Yes, I agree with you on that. The intent is hard to decipher on this one, because it could possibly demonstrate how we look at all forms of 'tutoring', from fetchlands/Natural Order (directly onto the battlefield), Enlightented Tutor/Demonic Tutor (top of library), Burning Wish/Cunning Wish (out of the sideboard), Infernal Tutor (conditional), Drift of Phantasms (conditional), even to something as benign as Evolving Wilds (drawback to tutoring.) If that is the intent, to truly dig deep into how powerful tutor effects are in the game, sure, I love the point. If it's to say fetchlands are so powerful that they should be banned, same as Demonic Tutor (which gets *any* card for only 2 mana) then I disagree. At that point the exaggeration has gone too far.

    Long story short (too late, lol), I also agree on qualifiers. We need to define what 'too good' means. Does that mean banworthy? Does that mean we search for alternative cards to ban so that it doesn't become banworthy (I'm looking at Flash compared to Protean Hulk here)? Should the enabler be banned or the cards that actually, functionally affect the outcome of the game? Is survival too good or is Vengevine too good? Is Tinker too good or is Blightsteel Colossus too good? Enabler or the card it enables? If we use that argument, and history, then fetchlands fall into the category of enabler for Brainstorm. Not a perfect argument, but I think thought provoking.

    Another interpretation of 'too good' could also be 'good enough to squelch other forms of the same strategy/functional effect.' Is Delver too good because Wild Nacatl doesn't see play because of it? If so, does it then need to be banned? The classic 'top vs counterbalance vs Terminus' argument is also a discussion that drove a lot of people nuts. Me personally? I found the argument for Terminus to be the most convincing, simply because the effect was so cheap and so easy to set up that it completely squashed some decks' ability to function. Yes SDT + CB was very good, but people were slinging Krosan Grip for that eventuality.

    For the record, I haven't found arguments against format diversity very convincing. Would a fetchland ban create more diversity because it forces more-stable 2-color mana-bases, opening up the format a little? Maybe. I'm skeptical. Mana-bases would change due to necessity, but I don't think anyone could predict accurately what it would look like. It comes down to speculation, which again I judge based on it's own merits (evidence, trends, history, etc.) I will stay consistent to what convinces me of the legitimacy of a fetchland ban discussion: perfect mana (as in a high percentage of consistently having the colors you need to function, along with protecting against Wasteland/Blood moon by fetching basics) and free shuffling effects (paying 1 life and a land drop, of which you need to do in 99% of decks anyways, to enable things like Brainstorm, Sylvan Library, Sensei's Divining Top.) Thirdly, and by far the weakest argument, is cheap graveyard filling for delve. Modern has demonstrated that Thought Scour, MIshra's Bauble, and Street Wraith are not only reasonable but good at enabling graveyard synergies such as delirium and delve. Fetchlands add to it, but don't supercharge it quite so much because fetching shocks comes at a high cost. Then again, Death's Shadow is a thing...
    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

  19. #20099
    Member

    Join Date

    Aug 2015
    Location

    The woods again
    Posts

    1,096

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    This argument is disturbingly similar to the Bloodmoon one imo. You are not losing to combo or Bloodmoon just because some free shuffle/tutoring effects are removed in a hypothetical scenario.
    Having not followed the thread closely over the last several pages, I don't know the Blood Moon argument; is it that decks shouldn't be allowed to run Blood Moon if they're running several colors? (I don't think that, but I remember seeing something to that effect a while back.)

    My argument about fast-combo is simply that removing card selection and useful blue cards (which pitch to Force) is dangerous because there are already decks that don't run those cards, that are exceptionally powerful against decks that don't use them, and that also are prey for the "cantrip cartel." So crapping on blue will really just let those other decks fill the vacuum. Fetches might be less instrumental, but losing them will still hobble the decks standing in the way of fast combo.
    All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
    PM me if you want to contribute!
    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    Just in time for Valentines Day 💝

    Roses are red, violets are blue
    Omae wa mou shindeiru
    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    Quick question, are you also still waiting for the great pumpkin it did you finally pick it in once December hit?
    Quote Originally Posted by iatee View Post
    I am tired of malicious top 8s and it is time to put an end to the practice.

  20. #20100
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    from birdsofparadise:

    The argument for banning fetch lands is that we'd move from the current location on the diversity vs power level graph to a location that is close in power level (a bit lower), more diverse, and still recognizably Legacy.
    Sweet jesus this is vague as fuck. What diversity vs power level graph do you speak of? What is 'a bit lower'? Are you suggesting strategic diversity or color diversity? Legacy today is unrecognizable from legacy in 2008, at least to me. So how does all this show it is 'still recognizable as legacy'?

    I continue to scratch my head at people claiming diversity changes if xyz changes. It leads to the slippery slope argument, taking it down to 'how many cards need to be banned to make zoo good again'? My response will likely be 'too many'.

    RonaldDeuce sums it up nicely for me:

    The thing that bothers me the most about the stridency of some of the arguments in this thread is that they're dealing with unknowns. We don't know whether card diversity will increase or decrease if fetchlands disappear or if Brainstorm gets banned. (For that matter, I think few people predicted a metagame of Oath of the Gatewatch: the Miraculous Chalicening after Deathrite and Probe left. I still maintain neither card did anything wrong in the face of lockpieces.) What we do know is that axing Brainstorm or fetches would neuter or outright remove a number of well-established decks for which there are no real analogues—many of which stand between All Spells and the rest of the format.

    I sincerely admire your dedication, but there's something Sisyphean about arguing with the "card diversity" crowd. They have yet to give a satisfactory answer for what would happen if Wizards decided card popularity was the main criterion for bans, not to mention for how they'd handle fast-combo if all the Force decks took a big hit.
    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)