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 1006 of 1178 FirstFirst ... 6506906956996100210031004100510061007100810091010101610561106 ... LastLast
Results 20,101 to 20,120 of 23542

Thread: All B/R update speculation.

  1. #20101

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    Proof.
    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.

  2. #20102
    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
    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.)
    I apologize then and elaborate. It has been brought to the table that without fetchlands to access the 1-2 basics people run, all decks would fold to Bloodmoon, assuming that everyone in that hypothetical meta would run similar greedy 3c manabases like the ones we are used to see. I look at that as an exaggeration as Bloodmoon is much older than Fetchlands and never rendered the game unplayable in the years between The Dark and Onslaught. The argument in context to Bloodmoon you have in mind, was about 4c DRS+BlueShell being able to run Bloodmoons themselves as a testament of the power of their manabase. A different topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    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."
    Cards like Ponder, Preordain, etc all remain even if Brainstorm would take a serious hit. It sure would affect deckbuilding, but from aspects of blue being great in regards to battling combo with zero mana counters, there is not changing much. With the exception of fragile deck like Belcher or Oops, combo would suffer from the lack of card selection on a pretty equal base has various blue control/midrange/tempo decks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    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.
    That's why I literally said "free Demonic tutor for Duals/Basics" (which was undermined once again for obvious reasons) in reference to "tutoring" as a synonyme for making 1-offs in your deck easily accessible like the popular 1 Island + 1 swamp during DRS' reign.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    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.
    That wasn't the idea. I could have taken Veteran Explorer or whatever as example, but went with the iconic card as a little nod to Julian who once labeled Elvish Visionary as "Demonic Tutor for a random card in your deck"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    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.
    Not just Brainstorm, but many cards which are now banned. The whole topic arose from a possible inconsistency in regards to banning enabler or the enabled card. WotC didnt spare SotF just to ban Necrotic ooze, Vengevine and Loyal Retainers, so I wonder why they did similar however in case of SDT, TC, DTT (both sure open for debate) and ultimately DRS.
    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.

  3. #20103

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    from birdsofparadise:
    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?
    I was trying to boil down an argument that I've posted in various wordings, and maybe this one wasn't understandable. Forget about any graph. What I am talking about is card diversity. If fetch lands were not legal, a variety of other lands would likely be used, possibly including shock lands, pain lands, check lands (Glacial Fortress), fast lands (Copperline Gorge), man lands (Raging Ravine), filter lands, and Mana Confluence. If a single optimal cycle of mana fixing land were used to replace the fetch lands, no diversity would be gained, but if several different options become viable for different deck types, then card diversity is gained. To me, this is a plus because I find a metagame more interesting when as many distinct cards as possible have a role, even if only a niche role. Other people may not care how many different cards see play; I'm not telling anyone else what to think or saying that my preference is "right".

    Obviously, banning fetch lands would lower the power level of the format. Did you find that part of my post unclear? Mana fixing would become just a bit worse (although there would remain loads of solid options), Brainstorm would become a lot worse, and some other strategies that involve getting lands in the graveyard would be weakened. I am not saying that lowering the power level is inherently desirable. I'm saying it wouldn't matter much compared to gains in variety of lands used in mana bases.

    Aside: Several people have freaked out that people are comparing fetch lands to Demonic Tutor or Sol Ring or whatever. The point is not that fetch lands are literally as broken as those cards. Rather, the point is that lowering the power of the format to enable a greater diversity of cards to thrive is not a decision that lacks precedent. Nearly every card on the current ban list was banned on the broad rationale that increasing diversity was worth sacrificing power level.

  4. #20104
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    @H you can find more on pages 995 and 996 about other manabase strategies could exist and compete if Fetchlands weren't around to make them all obsolete. Methods would still exist to run Brainstorm if people wanted to. If they wanted to keep trying to play SCM/Kcomm/Hymn-style good stuff decks, they're not running Brainstorm due to the need for ETB untapped mana + fixing. Decks which used to run on Fetchlands would need to re-evaluate 3/4th colors, importance of untapped mana vs access to tempo reservoirs (allowing ETB tapped land use), and there would be plenty of room to try out things like cycling lands to recapture what Fetchlands gave for free. I don't think you are recognizing just how many ways mana bases and the cards they select can be different and still competitive.

    So you have new, distinct ways to play broad strategies previously under the umbrella of Fetchlands and still have the narrow strategies under Cavern/Vial and Sol Lands. Now the narrow mana engines definitely get positional advantage, but their meta share is a joke vs Fetchlands. Not too worried about those two marginalizing every other deck using different mana engines because those potential mana engines were killed by Fetchlands alone. What you talked about could happen, but that issue wouldn't be hard to identify and fix (Tomb, Vial) if what you predict did happen.

    Fetchlands are running too rampant over the other competitive mana engines to make a good 'devil we know' argument. While legacy does look quite close to vintage (one broad mana engine, two narrow engines, and no other way to play consistently competitively), the profound power differential between Fetchlands vs the other two (measured with data) tells a different story. Operating with a lower power mana engine doesn't automatically mean broad strategies have no way to compete vs the narrow mana engines - particularly when the broad strategies can employ vastly different manabase philosophies which narrow strategies can't necessarily account for.

  5. #20105
    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 BirdsOfParadise View Post
    I was trying to boil down an argument that I've posted in various wordings, and maybe this one wasn't understandable. Forget about any graph. What I am talking about is card diversity. If fetch lands were not legal, a variety of other lands would likely be used, possibly including shock lands, pain lands, check lands (Glacial Fortress), fast lands (Copperline Gorge), man lands (Raging Ravine), filter lands, and Mana Confluence. If a single optimal cycle of mana fixing land were used to replace the fetch lands, no diversity would be gained, but if several different options become viable for different deck types, then card diversity is gained. To me, this is a plus because I find a metagame more interesting when as many distinct cards as possible have a role, even if only a niche role. Other people may not care how many different cards see play; I'm not telling anyone else what to think or saying that my preference is "right".

    Obviously, banning fetch lands would lower the power level of the format. Did you find that part of my post unclear? Mana fixing would become just a bit worse (although there would remain loads of solid options), Brainstorm would become a lot worse, and some other strategies that involve getting lands in the graveyard would be weakened. I am not saying that lowering the power level is inherently desirable. I'm saying it wouldn't matter much compared to gains in variety of lands used in mana bases.

    Aside: Several people have freaked out that people are comparing fetch lands to Demonic Tutor or Sol Ring or whatever. The point is not that fetch lands are literally as broken as those cards. Rather, the point is that lowering the power of the format to enable a greater diversity of cards to thrive is not a decision that lacks precedent. Nearly every card on the current ban list was banned on the broad rationale that increasing diversity was worth sacrificing power level.
    Very good post. Isolated, that statement made little sense to me. Your patience in explaining it is appreciated. I agree with your points. I even approached some of them in my previous post about how talking about tutor effects could be very productive. I think it may be helpful to have a way to make it measurable, rather than terms like 'a bit lower' or pulling on a category that not all of us recognize (diversity vs power level.)

    In particular I think fastlands and check lands appeal to different strategies. Faster tempo decks that need early untapped lands want the fastland; slower mid-range and control decks want untapped lands in the mid-late game to fuel their bigger plays, so check lands make more sense. I think we agree here.

    I certainly did not react with incredulity at comparing fetchlands to demonic tutor, quite the contrary. They are functionally equivalent, both finding a card on your deck and making it available. One is obviously more powerful, but that doesn't change that they serve the same function.

    What do you think of my 2 core premises on a fetchlands ban discussion: is perfect mana ok, are free shuffle effects ok? For me those are the real questions. Graveyard filling has tons of options , ie thought scour, so while fetches help feed delve cards they aren't solely responsible for how broken the delve cards possibly could be.

    Edit: @lemnear I caught up with your post, and I think we agree on the fetchland/tutor comparison (functionality.) Taking your point about only lands/ basics and instead calling it crazy to compare tutor to fetches, I think it was misinterpreted. Maybe you can sympathize why I had such a crusade with my scarecrow pics? You also brought home the point about fetching basics; you can play 2 basic lands but functionally have 10-12 available. Oddly enough, I was ruminating on the fact that the sleeves on my basic lands get more wear than any other cards in my deck, simply because they get used almost every game. Odd thought for the day, lol.
    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

  6. #20106
    Site Contributor
    apple713's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2012
    Location

    Manhattan, NY
    Posts

    2,086

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    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.
    We do know, with absolute certainty, that if fetchlands get banned card diversity increases. How we know this is because something must replace these cards and there is no obvious second choice. As someone mentioned it could be some combination of "shock lands, pain lands, check lands (Glacial Fortress), fast lands (Copperline Gorge), man lands (Raging Ravine), filter lands, and Mana Confluence." We can test this by first asking people to build a manabase (with fetchlands in the format) for a deck like RUG delver that has a fairly constant manabase and measuring the variance between all of those lists. Second, we ask those same people to build a manabase for the same deck but with fetchlands removed from the format. I would be willing to bet anything that the variance in lists after you remove fetchlands is HUGE compared to before removing fetchlands.

    Now, this argument would not be the same if you banned brainstorm. There is a fairly clear next best option, preordain. Some decks might opt for portent but most would stick to preordain.

    In legacy, at least in my opinion, one of the most attractive features of the format is that there is a significantly larger pool of decks that are viable than ANY other format. If you want to play with cards that are more powerful than those in legacy you can go to vintage. If you want to play in a format with a smaller pool of decks you can play Standard or Modern. Legacy is the middle ground with fairly high card powerlevel and a very large amount of deck diversity. Thus, it would make sense that one of the goals of banning cards in legacy is increased format diversity. WOTC actually says this in their explanation of banning mental misstep, "The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep."
    Play 4 Card Blind!

    Currently Playing
    Legacy: Dark Depths
    EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid

    Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi

    why cards are so expensive...hoarders

  7. #20107
    Foreign Black Border
    Lord_Mcdonalds's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2012
    Location

    Houston, Texas
    Posts

    753

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I’ve heard of go play modern, but go play vintage is a new one.

    That aside, does a fetchlands ban necessarily result in a more diverse metagame? Your options are limited by the mana available to you (a large part of the reason why certain cards/shells in standard never see play is because their mana is atrocious and unreliable), inevitably, there will be decks hurt significantly by it, both due to their mana fixing getting worse (three color decks become much more difficult, and in the face of wasteland, possibly unplayable), and certain cards being worse (namely brainstorm).

    Sure there is increased diversity as far as what lands people are playing, but who cares? In that area, is that a metric worth considering? Moreso than in other aspects, people are going to play the best mana fixing/lands because those are what is going to enable the most options. If the goal is indeed format diversity, I’d argue banning fetches is likely the opposite of what they’d want to do. This isn’t standard where how you solve deck building with a limited card pool is the appeal, the appeal is powerful cards and interactions, fetchlands enable that.
    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. #20108
    Site Contributor
    apple713's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2012
    Location

    Manhattan, NY
    Posts

    2,086

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds View Post
    I’ve heard of go play modern, but go play vintage is a new one.

    That aside, does a fetchlands ban necessarily result in a more diverse metagame? Your options are limited by the mana available to you (a large part of the reason why certain cards/shells in standard never see play is because their mana is atrocious and unreliable), inevitably, there will be decks hurt significantly by it, both due to their mana fixing getting worse (three color decks become much more difficult, and in the face of wasteland, possibly unplayable), and certain cards being worse (namely brainstorm).

    Sure there is increased diversity as far as what lands people are playing, but who cares? In that area, is that a metric worth considering? Moreso than in other aspects, people are going to play the best mana fixing/lands because those are what is going to enable the most options.
    The example of increased diversity in land selection is only 1 of many things that would happen. The reason I mentioned it is because it is the easiest change to see since there is a direct relationship. If people could think for themselves they would be able to see the other indirect relationships. If people wanted to run a bunch of delve cards they might actually have to have a strategy for it and use other cards to enable that strategy instead of just reaping the free benefits of fetchalands. Additionally, I think you are overestimating how much decks would be hurt by losing fetchlands. 3 color decks functioned fine without fetchlands. Furthermore, Sol Land decks are not as consistent as fetchlands based decks (gee I wonder why?) and by removing fetchlands you increase the likely hood of putting these two decks on a more fair playing field. More people willing to experiment with decks that were once ruled out because of their inconsistency.

    This isn't about being able to play all the colors to increase diversity. It is about removing a very powerful land based engine that is an auto include in most of the decks and decreasing the efficiency to allow other decks to compete that would otherwise be pushed out of the format.

    If you improve mana fixing the result would be a decrease in diversity. Lets say WOTC prints

    Name: "The Best Basic Land"
    Type: Basic Land
    Text: tap to add 1 mana of any color to you mana pool.

    Now every deck simply plays the best option across all colors to achieve their goal.

    Creature removal: swords to plowshares
    Fast mana: dark ritual
    Card draw: Brainstorm (now 100% of the decks in the format are playing this)
    Hand Disruption: Thoughtseize
    3 CMC creature: TNN / leovold


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds View Post
    This isn’t standard where how you solve deck building with a limited card pool is the appeal, the appeal is powerful cards and interactions, fetchlands enable that.
    Where do you draw the line between powerful and too powerful? fetchlands are so fucking powerful they are run in mono colored decks!!! seriously WTF. (see High Tide). They are pretty much auto included in any decks that that dont run sol lands. Anything that is an auto include is generally a bad thing. (see reference to mental misstep ban above). Fetchlands are leagues ahead of any other option because their cost of paying 1 life is way too cheap. It's so cheap in fact that many people have commented on them in such a way that the cost is nominal. If you increase the amount of life paid to 2 life, do people stop auto including them? probably not... but maybe you run 8 instead of 12. How about if they cost 3 life? Would you play them if each fetch cost you 3 life? What if instead of costing you life, you gave your opponent life? giving your opponent 1 life would be WAY better than costing you 1 life. How about giving your opponent 2 life? Probably still better than costing 1 life. The point is that you would have to increase the current cost by 200% to really even stop and think about whether to auto include them in your decks. There are decks that even at the cost of 3 life per fetch they would still play them because the benefit of shuffling and thinning your deck are really good benefits. These residual benefits are in addition to the fact that they still provide perfect mana fixing. Come the fuck on.
    Play 4 Card Blind!

    Currently Playing
    Legacy: Dark Depths
    EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid

    Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi

    why cards are so expensive...hoarders

  9. #20109

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Saying fetch lands are auto-includes in mono-colored decks is disingenuous. They are only "auto-includes" if said decks run Brainstorm (see: High Tide) or run some card that makes use of the decks graveyard (Lavamancer, any delve spell, etc). Mono-colored decks don't like running into Stifle for no good reason.

  10. #20110
    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 apple713 View Post
    The example of increased diversity in land selection is only 1 of many things that would happen. The reason I mentioned it is because it is the easiest change to see since there is a direct relationship. If people could think for themselves they would be able to see the other indirect relationships. If people wanted to run a bunch of delve cards they might actually have to have a strategy for it and use other cards to enable that strategy instead of just reaping the free benefits of fetchalands. Additionally, I think you are overestimating how much decks would be hurt by losing fetchlands. 3 color decks functioned fine without fetchlands. Furthermore, Sol Land decks are not as consistent as fetchlands based decks (gee I wonder why?) and by removing fetchlands you increase the likely hood of putting these two decks on a more fair playing field. More people willing to experiment with decks that were once ruled out because of their inconsistency.

    This isn't about being able to play all the colors to increase diversity. It is about removing a very powerful land based engine that is an auto include in most of the decks and decreasing the efficiency to allow other decks to compete that would otherwise be pushed out of the format.
    You mean the strategy of play cheap interactive spells and be rewarded with absurd draw spells and creatures? Gee, I had to think about that one for a minute. Furthermore Sol Land based decks are inconsistent..well because they are. They are decks predicated on hitting their land drops, and curving out while also not having any internal consistency beyond what redundant deck building gives them. Those decks suffer the most from mulligans and well timed wastelands, fetchlands do not change any of that.

    Also lol Engine.

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    If you improve mana fixing the result would be a decrease in diversity. Lets say WOTC prints

    Name: "The Best Basic Land"
    Type: Basic Land
    Text: tap to add 1 mana of any color to you mana pool.

    Now every deck simply plays the best option across all colors to achieve their goal.
    I'll take cards that won't be printed for 200 Trebek. You either misunderstood what I meant or are misrepresenting it, regardless, options in this case refers to strategic options as far as deck choice. I cannot play a deck if my mana doesn't support it. Banning fetchlands reduces strategic options because certain decks mana bases become unworkable.

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post

    Where do you draw the line between powerful and too powerful? fetchlands are so fucking powerful they are run in mono colored decks!!! seriously WTF. (see High Tide). They are pretty much auto included in any decks that that dont run sol lands. Anything that is an auto include is generally a bad thing. (see reference to mental misstep ban above). Fetchlands are leagues ahead of any other option because their cost of paying 1 life is way too cheap. It's so cheap in fact that many people have commented on them in such a way that the cost is nominal. If you increase the amount of life paid to 2 life, do people stop auto including them? probably not... but maybe you run 8 instead of 12. How about if they cost 3 life? Would you play them if each fetch cost you 3 life? What if instead of costing you life, you gave your opponent life? giving your opponent 1 life would be WAY better than costing you 1 life. How about giving your opponent 2 life? Probably still better than costing 1 life. The point is that you would have to increase the current cost by 200% to really even stop and think about whether to auto include them in your decks. There are decks that even at the cost of 3 life per fetch they would still play them because the benefit of shuffling and thinning your deck are really good benefits. These residual benefits are in addition to the fact that they still provide perfect mana fixing. Come the fuck on.
    Mental Misstep constrained the format, it narrowed strategic options and forced decks to play it because it was the best answer to itself. Fetches might push out some mana bases (who cares), but it certainly enables far more decks than it constrains. Fetchlands are powerful, but they present a net-gain for the format in terms of what you can do with your mana base strategically (without forcing all the games to basically play out the same like with Deathrite Shaman)

    Futhermore, where do you draw the line on auto includes, does that include swords to plowshares, does that include lightning bolt, does that include force of will, do you draw the line at lands but not spells?
    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.

  11. #20111

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    We do know, with absolute certainty, that if fetchlands get banned card diversity increases. How we know this is because something must replace these cards and there is no obvious second choice. As someone mentioned it could be some combination of "shock lands, pain lands, check lands (Glacial Fortress), fast lands (Copperline Gorge), man lands (Raging Ravine), filter lands, and Mana Confluence." We can test this by first asking people to build a manabase (with fetchlands in the format) for a deck like RUG delver that has a fairly constant manabase and measuring the variance between all of those lists. Second, we ask those same people to build a manabase for the same deck but with fetchlands removed from the format. I would be willing to bet anything that the variance in lists after you remove fetchlands is HUGE compared to before removing fetchlands.

    Now, this argument would not be the same if you banned brainstorm. There is a fairly clear next best option, preordain. Some decks might opt for portent but most would stick to preordain.

    In legacy, at least in my opinion, one of the most attractive features of the format is that there is a significantly larger pool of decks that are viable than ANY other format. If you want to play with cards that are more powerful than those in legacy you can go to vintage. If you want to play in a format with a smaller pool of decks you can play Standard or Modern. Legacy is the middle ground with fairly high card powerlevel and a very large amount of deck diversity. Thus, it would make sense that one of the goals of banning cards in legacy is increased format diversity. WOTC actually says this in their explanation of banning mental misstep, "The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep."
    So you are comparing a deck, that has be worked on and solved for years, with at times 58/60 main deck fix slots, and the same deck after you removed its best 8 lands and had 0 testing and exploration of the new built? And you conclusion is there would be more diversity in the lists? Man you really are a genious... Of course a unexplored metagame or cardpool will have more diversity, you can see that with every ban or new standard set. That doesn't say anything about how diverse the settled meta will look like.

    Ehm, actually modern clearly has the largest pool of viable decks in any format. Legacy's feature is high card powerlevel yes, so when I summarize your suggestion as "Ban to most powerful land option to increase format diversity", maybe modern is indeed a better place for you. You can play all your Fast-, Filter-,Check-,Man-,Tronlands there competitively

  12. #20112
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    If people could think for themselves(...)
    so fucking powerful!!1!1!
    (fixed the 1s you forgot among the exclamations)

    And just when I thought the thread was starting to have more sense and appear more sane, all the usual suspects are back (of course they never leaved), even more so (I'm not referring to people, but to what people say).
    We seem to reach an agreement that unmotivated qualifiers are bad for a meaningful discussion? Well, instead of abolishing the hypocritical use of "perfect", "greedy", "too good", etc, if it wasn't enogh, we add the "fucking fuckety fuck" variation: they are not just "too powerful", they are "too fucking powerful", what a wonderful upgrade for a fair, logic discussion: now you have convinced me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    perfect mana
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    free shuffle
    What is perfect? For example, your wondered wonderful tricolor-fetchland would be "more perfect"? (shouldn't "perfect" be by definition something that isn't improvable in any way?)
    What is free? Hell, I almost always play control decks and I assure you one life point isn't exactly free. Also one life point has not the same relevance regardless of what archetype you are playing.


    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    If people wanted to run a bunch of delve cards they might actually have to have a strategy for it and use other cards to enable that strategy instead of just reaping the free benefits of fetchalands
    At the risk of evoking scarecrows all over the page (reapers everywhere), so you are saying that fetchlands enable delve by themselves, you get to play delve cards by just playing fetchlands and nothing else, and without fetchlands the banned delve cards wouldn't be broken? As in, fetchlands are the only thing that ever goes in a graveyard (different reapers everywhere) in a legacy game?


    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    Anything that is an auto include is generally a bad thing
    And if you say that, this must certainly be true, self evident and generally accepted without discussion by every legacy player.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    how talking about tutor effects could be very productive. (..)
    I certainly did not react with incredulity at comparing fetchlands to demonic tutor, quite the contrary. They are functionally equivalent, both finding a card on your deck and making it available. One is obviously more powerful, but that doesn't change that they serve the same function. (...)
    I think we agree on the fetchland/tutor comparison (functionality). Taking your point about only lands/ basics and instead calling it crazy to compare tutor to fetches, I think it was misinterpreted. Maybe you can sympathize why I had such a crusade with my scarecrow pics?
    Literally, everything that contains the words "search your library for" is a "tutor".
    But is it demonic? Maybe, in the sense that many thinks fetchlands are a satanic presence for the format.

    I wonder, why some kinds of tutor are banned and others aren't? should we ban everything from stoneforge mystic to gamble? what about land grant? (it's even free)

    Even if you cleverly sheltered yourself by criticism using "functionally" and admitting that they aren't literally the same, you do understand that if you use the word "equivalent" one is encouraged to use the transitive property and highlight that this line of thoughts is kind of like "fetchlands is equivalent to demonic tutor, land grant is equivalent to demonic tutor, so land grant is equivalent to fetchlands. Let's just play land grants in replacement of fetchlands. Or maybe we can cut fetchlands alltogether and play with entombs in their slots, it's kinda functionally equivalent".
    but if someone mocks the smallness and the hypocrisy in this choice of words, let the scarecrows haunt him!

    Using demonic tutor as a comparison unconsciously draw the reader to the conclusion that since demonic is "too" powerful, then fetchlands should be too! That's precisely another kind of logical fallacy, but of course not as picturesque as scarecrows.
    I can't know if that's done on purpose, still this is a wrong and unfair way of arguing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    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
    That wasn't the idea
    No? Aren't you claiming that fetchlands should be banned? Aren't you comparing them to demonic tutor? aren't you saying that this comparison has his weight as a reason fetchlands should be banned?


    Quote Originally Posted by apple713 View Post
    We do know, with absolute certainty, that if fetchlands get banned card diversity increases (...)
    How we know this is because something must replace these cards and there is no obvious second choice.
    it could be some combination of "shock lands, pain lands, check lands (Glacial Fortress), fast lands (Copperline Gorge), man lands (Raging Ravine), filter lands, and Mana Confluence"
    (...) it would make sense that one of the goals of banning cards in legacy is increased format diversity
    Can you please use some of your absolute certainty to tell me lottery numbers? Now that's a perfect prediction that I'd find useful.
    If I have to answer seriously: format diversity is a completely different thing that manabase diversity. Also, I suppose no obvious second choice would emerge at first, but eventually "the best" manabase for each strategy would be identified as the metagame settles and people acquire experience, thus arriving to the fucking exact situation as we currently have, just with fetchland replaced by something else.


    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    Forget about any graph. (...) If fetch lands were not legal, a variety of other lands would likely be used (...)
    Actually I for one found your graph wording pretty clear and a good summary of your ideas.
    As for the second sentence, yes, I'd assume that even with fetchland banned we would still play lands in our decks

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    So you have new, distinct ways to play broad strategies
    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    If a single optimal cycle of mana fixing land were used to replace the fetch lands, no diversity would be gained
    So, of course it's all speculation, after all this is a thread of speculation. Let's ban something that maybe doesn't have the effect we pursue. Yeah, it seems a pretty good reason to ban something to me. What is WOTC waiting for?

    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    What I am talking about is card diversity. (...) If several different options become viable for different deck types, then card diversity is gained. To me, this is a plus because I find a metagame more interesting when as many distinct cards as possible have a role
    (...) Nearly every card on the current ban list was banned on the broad rationale that increasing [metagame] diversity was worth sacrificing power level
    I (of course it's a personal preference) agree with the purpose of a more wide metagame. What I still can't understand is

    why the fuck people continues to confuse card diversity with metagame diversity?!

    are you (I'm not referring only to you BirdsOfParadise, no offense intended) incapable of understanding the difference between the two concepts? Are you on purpose avoiding to discuss this, because otherwise you would be forced to motivate why one should affect the other in the way you intend? If not, then why?

    Would having a split of 2 swords to plowshares and 2 path to exile instead of a 4-of of the former increase the format diversity?
    WHO - THE FUCK - CARES!



    Let's discuss another hypothesis. What if we banned ABU duals instead of fetchlands (I'm not proposing this, just using it as a a simplified example because it's easier to analyze and understand). The rationale being: ABU are clearly the fucking strongest choice for a manabase that is pushing out of the format every other land choice. In order to increase diversity, hoping someone would choose to play fastlands, filterlands, and similar other Beloved Lands, let's ban ABU duals. I'd make a prediction: all decks that could afford the loss of two life points would switch to shockland. Impact on the metagame: reduce diversity (those decks who couldn't afford it would become unplayable, this kind of ban would affect control decks more than combos and aggros), nothing to gain.
    Can't see (and haven't seen anyone explaining it) why with fetchlands should happen something different. I'd like to have explicit description of exactly what archetypes could arise (that aren't already playable as of now, of course), taking into account also what decks would disappear; it should also be shown that the former would be more numerous than decks killed by such a kind of a ban.


    PS.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    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'?
    I wholeheartedly agree (and also gladly note that's not an instance of putting words in other's mouth that would require a scarecrow intervention )

    Last edited by talpa; 07-20-2018 at 06:09 AM.

  13. #20113
    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 Mr. Safety View Post
    Taking your point about only lands/ basics and instead calling it crazy to compare tutor to fetches, I think it was misinterpreted. Maybe you can sympathize why I had such a crusade with my scarecrow pics?
    Actually, it's a major reason I minimized participation over the last days. We are all aware that this thread is a waste of time in regards to the format, its management as well as development, discussing hypothetical stuff only. I am fine with (and have myself) dismissed ideas, but if that's done with personal attacks and nonstop strawmen, it gets too annoying as lunchbreak lecture to read, because there is no progress. I mean, we wasted literally pages on definitions of "engines", "too good", "diversity", etc., while barely touching the matter of if a card cycle with much higher numbers than the infamous brainstorm itself, is a holy cow in several regards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    You also brought home the point about fetching basics; you can play 2 basic lands but functionally have 10-12 available. Oddly enough, I was ruminating on the fact that the sleeves on my basic lands get more wear than any other cards in my deck, simply because they get used almost every game. Odd thought for the day, lol.
    I think it's "normal". You fetch a basic island to play your Ponder and not only blank opponents Wasteland/Moon/B2B/etc, but also gain access to 4 fresh cards. And now we talk about the opportunity costs for that card quality... ;p

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    Let's discuss another hypothesis. What if we banned ABU duals instead of fetchlands (I'm not proposing this, just using it as a a simplified example because it's easier to analyze and understand). I'd make a prediction: all decks that could afford the loss of two life points would switch to shockland. Impact on the metagame: reduce diversity (those decks who couldn't afford it would become unplayable, this kind of ban would affect control decks more than combos and aggros), nothing to gain.
    I think the goal of banning ABU duals should be elaborated here. I have seen many combo and midrange decks over the years which easily get away with ~4 duals total. Unless you play a control deck like Miracles, I am unsure if the actual pressure on the life total per game is any bigger than then people ran Gitaxian Probes.

    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    Aren't you comparing them to demonic tutor? aren't you saying that this comparison has his weight as a reason fetchlands should be banned?
    I did nothing like that, which I am sure you are actually aware of. What you do here is, once again, putting words in my mouth.
    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.

  14. #20114
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Just a quick reply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    I did nothing like that, which I am sure you are actually aware of. What you do here is, once again, putting words in my mouth
    I'm not the one who wrote the words "demonic tutor" in the same sentence with "fetchlands". If you don't like when someone highlights your exaggerations, maybe don't use exaggerations at all. But glad that you're retracting, so maybe for the sake of clarity we can stop using those words from now on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    we wasted literally pages on definitions of "engines", "too good", "diversity", etc., while barely touching the matter
    If you don't understand why "subtleties" actually determine which conclusions one should draw from an argument... maybe we don't have the basis for having a worthy discussion on a complicated matter and won't ever be able to exchange more than rough concepts.
    I never saw lack of clarity help understanding. The only sacred cow I keep seeing is the use of words at random, like "diversity", with a meaning that changes from a sentence to another (accordingly to what suits more at the moment) or no meaning at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    Actually, it's a major reason I minimized participation over the last days
    You're doing a pretty good job, please continue.

  15. #20115
    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.

    Posting some highlights, which I like:

    From talpa:
    What is perfect? For example, your wondered wonderful tricolor-fetchland would be "more perfect"? (shouldn't "perfect" be by definition something that isn't improvable in any way?)
    What is free? Hell, I almost always play control decks and I assure you one life point isn't exactly free. Also one life point has not the same relevance regardless of what archetype you are playing.
    I like this definition for perfect in regards to an effect in magic, as in not improvable; as good as it could get. Not paying a life, getting any land, not tapping the land to activate. Those would be improvements on fetchlands. Now that we know what the improvements could be, are those drawbacks enough to make them reasonable? I am not stating an opinion, just asking the question.

    from Lord McDonalds:
    I'll take cards that won't be printed for 200 Trebek. You either misunderstood what I meant or are misrepresenting it, regardless, options in this case refers to strategic options as far as deck choice. I cannot play a deck if my mana doesn't support it. Banning fetchlands reduces strategic options because certain decks mana bases become unworkable.
    What is: the best summary for how banning fetches doesn't increase diversity Alex? I find the argument for diversity lacking.

    I stick to my guns that the valid discussion points revolve around perfect mana bases and free shuffle effects. Perfect in regards to realistic expectations, that is. A card could be printed that says 0 -'play this as a land that taps for any color, or is a creature with any p/t, or counter any spell, or look at opponent's hand and have them discard any card. You may play this at any time, Split Second'. That card isn't getting printed, so then we start talking about 'reasonably perfect', as in cards that do powerful things with a drawback that offsets that in a reasonable way, that can't be improved upon without making it unreasonable. Unreasonable meaning obviously too good, such as my card example.

    From Apple713:
    We do know, with absolute certainty, that if fetchlands get banned card diversity increases.
    No, we don't. Right now we can literally play *any* tri-colored combination by using a basic formula and make it work: 8-12 fetchlands, 4-6 ABU duals, 3-5 basics. It's pathetically easy to play Mardu mana-bases as readily as Temur. Once the drawbacks of the other dual lands start affecting deck performance, some decks become unreasonable in the metagame. At that point we may be using more lands but have fewer competitive decks. To me, that is not 'knowing with absolute certainty that card diversity increases'. It might be a net gain, a net loss, or neutral. By your own argument, that puts Modern as the format with the most card diversity, because the only competitive color-fixing lands Modern can't use are ABU duals. If you say that 'legacy has more non-land card options because of a larger non-land card pool' then your specific point of fetchlands affecting card diversity goes out the window. At that point lands are only part of the diversity discussion, and I would argue the smallest deciding factor on it because they overlap between Modern and Legacy so much.

    From Lemnear:
    Actually, it's a major reason I minimized participation over the last days.
    Arrgh, no! You bring unique perspective, please keep slummin' with the rest of us! Seriously, I appreciate your viewpoints, even if I don't agree with all of them.
    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

  16. #20116
    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
    I'm not the one who wrote the words "demonic tutor" in the same sentence with "fetchlands".
    No, you are just the one who constantly and intentionally adds/cuts important stuff from everything I write in order to create one strawman after another, unwilling/-able to adress the original points whatsoever (like on P.993). You know exactly what the reference in regards to Demonic Tutor was (aka accessing 1-offs), yet you decided to make something up instead.

    By the way, the post you keep refering to never had "fetchlands" written in the same sentence as "demonic tutor". It's yet again a made up "quote" you want to make me accountable for.

  17. #20117
    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 Lemnear View Post
    No, you are just the one who constantly and intentionally adds/cuts important stuff from everything I write in order to create one strawman after another, unwilling/-able to adress the original points whatsoever (like on P.993). You know exactly what the reference in regards to Demonic Tutor was (aka accessing 1-offs), yet you decided to make something up instead.

    By the way, the post you keep refering to never had "fetchlands" written in the same sentence as "demonic tutor". It's yet again a made up "quote" you want to make me accountable for.
    He's not wrong talpa...

    You may not be the only one misconstruing words or intentions, but it is happening. I respectfully ask that we all avoid that in order to progress the discussion as closely to original intent as possible. I myself re-read posts frequently, making sure I didn't misinterpret the message. I've deleted posts because I realized I was attempting to respond to something that wasn't there, or was different than I understood.
    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

  18. #20118
    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
    the post you keep refering to never had fetchlands written in the same sentence as demonic tutor. It's yet again a made up "quote" you want to make me accountable for
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    8+ free demonic tutors for duals & Basics
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    I literally said "free Demonic tutor for Duals/Basics"
    I have a vague suspicion that in the context you were referring to fetchlands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    you constantly and intentionally add/cut important stuff in order to create one strawman after another, unwilling/-able to adress the original points whatsoever (like on P.993). You know exactly what the reference in regards to Demonic Tutor was (aka accessing 1-offs)
    Of course I understand why you chose those words.
    Still, the problem I have with those kind of expressions is
    Quote Originally Posted by talpa View Post
    Using demonic tutor as a comparison unconsciously [or worse, purposefully] draws the reader to the [unproven, unmotivated] conclusion that since demonic is "too" powerful, then fetchlands should be too! That's precisely another kind of logical fallacy, but of course not as picturesque as scarecrows.
    I can't know if that's done on purpose, still this is a wrong and unfair way of arguing, [because it avoids to address the question, it doesn't discuss it honestly in a open way, instead it tries to "impress" the reader]
    Anyway, since you said that's not what you meant to do, can't we simply move on and stop using a confusing/insinuating terminology?

    I don't even know what the "original points" should be. MrSafety is pointing fundamentally to two arguments (strong manabase -I refuse the usage of "perfect" as explained- and shuffle effect -I refuse the qualifier "free" for the reasons explained, those qualifiers are prejudicial). Do you agree those are the only one we should discuss?
    I already answered to them (and others) here.



    by the way at pag 993 I can't find any argument proposed by you that wasn't already answered. Are you referring to this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    I am well aware that the claim was too generalistic in the first place (...) I am certain his point was, that only Fetches allow you to get reliable access to off-colors with that little effort
    The first part almost sounds like you are apologizing for explaining poorly. As for the second one, I certainly agree that fetches allow you to get access to off-color; I doubt they can do this realiably, I don't believe it comes with little effort (in terms of overall deck construction, especially with shaman gone) and I don't think they are the only legacy-available solution to access to off-colors. Anyway, even if all of that was right, I still wouldn't see any problem described, simply a state-of-art.

  19. #20119
    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.

    Small suggestion: could we as a collective define what 'harm' means in regards to the Legacy format? We could approach the concept of format well-being with the same philosophy as secular humanism: well-being is equivalent to reducing as much harm as possible. Once we know what harm means, we can actively discuss how to reduce it in the format. Yes, there will be varied opinions on what is harmful. Make your case in a reasonable way and we'll chime in.

    For me, harm is hard to define (obviously.) A few characteristics that come to mind:

    1) A card or mechanic that pushes complete strategies out of the format. In a format as big as legacy there are many options for how to achieve a strategy. I'm not referring to this as 'zoo must be in the format to have an agro deck'. We still have burn (efficient dudes and burn spells), Nic Fit and Maverick (toolbox agro), and RUG Delver (tempo/agro). Attacking with creatures as a fundamental way to win the game is there. If creatures were not viable, other than in absurdly efficient combos similar to Vintage like Oath/Tinker, or purely as hatebears, then something is harming the format by not allowing a fundamental magic strategy (attacking with hard-cast creatures to win.) Just a quick one, tear it apart if it doesn't add up.

    2) A deck that performs better than an agreed upon percentage against the entire field of frequently played decks. My example here are Survival-based decks, and to a smaller extent Top Miracles. Both strategies clearly rose to dominance becoming literally *the* best deck. Both strategies survived the bans in a measurable way: Survival was replaced by Green Sun's Zenith which powers up Maverick and Elves for example, and miracles adjusted with other cards like Portent and Predict. This isn't a comprehensive analysis, just a rough pass. GSZ-based decks and Miracles are still in the format, and doing well if not tier 1 (although Miracles still sneaks into that category occasionally.) This is a situation where reducing harm (banning Survival and Top) may have created a net gain on format well-being.

    En garde.
    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

  20. #20120
    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
    define "harm" (see previous page)
    I'll try to surprise you twice: I'll do a short post, and I agree.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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