All B/R update speculation.

[Crimhead]

Those deck are categorised by common cards. Because we talk about cards not about decks.

If we want to meaningfully discuss diversity in a strategy game, we talk about strategies. Strategies are linked to decks or match-ups more so than to individual cards - especially cards that are enablers or filters.

DRS pushes a certain (narrow) range of strategies - debatably to uncomfortable levels. BS does not push that strategy. Take BS away and the best DRS decks get worse, but so does much of the rest of field. Hard to say where the chips will fall. Take DRS away, and pretty much only one kind of deck gets worse - the kind that is (allegedly) too good.

Now if the goal is not to make fair decks worse, but to make them change colours and cores, by all means ban BS not DRS. So what exactly is the problem? Too many decks of a similar play-styles, or the fact that they are mostly blue (instead of mostly green)?

TLDR, a DRS ban could be sold as defending strategic diversity. A BS ban would be better sold as defending colour or core-enabler diversity.

[Crimhead]

I would like to see more decks that operate on different engines. Fair/Grindy applications of Faithless Looting, for example, like the old Zombardment deck or modern’s BRw pyromancer deck.

I’d like to see Dark Confidant come back as a good card, or for Smuggler’s Copter to get a chance to break out.

I really liked the old Zombardment lists! The old builds with Humility. I Always wanted that deck to take off.

I also get excited whenever I see Merfolk placing. Was a list that top-8ed recently that ran a Scooter. I'd like to see that breaking out. Where else do you see Looter Scooter? I only really picture it in aggro decks. Maybe Affinity? Do you think it could be midrange viable?

Bob I could take or leave. It's another value engine with legs, not exciting to me personally. But I get how it would be nice if you like value engines with legs.

I'm not sure cantrip are what's holding those decks back.

• Bob's last home was Shadeless, and he got power crept out by better creatures.
• Affinity and Fish struggled when Maverick was king g of the hill. Worse so by the time Jund supplanted Maverick. Midrange killed aggro by getting superior tools across the board.
• Bombardment... Who the fuck knows what that would need?

I could see maybe Bob coming back if they ban enough cantrips that Leotard becomes undesirable main deck. But a ban of that caliber would wreak unpredictable havoc, so it's hard to say.

[Darkness]

DRS is on my ban vote for tomorrow, here's looking to a coming of the new Golden Age in Legacy.

[zulander]

Ban Deathrite, Brainstorm, and Ponder. I'm all for that.

[thedetoxguy]

Ban Deathrite, Brainstorm, and Ponder. I'm all for that.

May I point you over towards Modern? Seems like what you are looking for.

[ubernostrum]

Forsythe on Twitter tonight: https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/985674571188588544

Replying to someone saying Workshop needs a restriction in Vintage, he says:

It's one of the "pillars of the format" that makes it unique and players tolerate/love. It's like Brainstorm in Legacy. Every saturation metric we could ever invent would point to it being banned, but people love it. Transgressive stuff needs a place to live.

Is this as close as we've come to an official "no, we're never going to ban Brainstorm" statement?

[thedetoxguy]

Forsythe on Twitter tonight: https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/985674571188588544

Replying to someone saying Workshop needs a restriction in Vintage, he says:



Is this as close as we've come to an official "no, we're never going to ban Brainstorm" statement?

Yes

[Lemnear]

Wow. Brainstorm is now officially a pillar. Can we lock down this thread now as it's dead?

[Hopo]

I'd love it if DCI took a closer look at the possibility of managing a restricted list in legacy. I don't know about the history of not doing this but it feels like it would be fresh and interesting.

[Erdvermampfa]

I find it more concerning that Wizards apparently adopted the concept of "pillar of formats" (which basically originated from various internet platforms of the MtG community) as a tool to handle the development of formats...Yesterday I reread TomLapille's article on the Mystical Tutor Ban from 2010 and wished they would still pursue a comparable "holistic" approach that looks at the overall state of the format.

[Dice_Box]

I am disappointed but not surprised. I only wish this had of been said in black and white years ago. Oh wait, it was, every ban announcement.

[Lemnear]

I find it more concerning that Wizards apparently adopted the concept of "pillar of formats" (which basically originated from various internet platforms of the MtG community) as a tool to handle the development of formats...Yesterday I reread TomLapille's article on the Mystical Tutor Ban from 2010 and wished they would still pursue a comparable "holistic" approach that looks at the overall state of the format.

That article was the most ridiculous ban justification in the history of MTG and resulted in LaPille being moved to D&D as a result for years. I don't think we should encourage WotC to abuse strawmen instead of tournament data for bannings. I still don't know how 2-3 games against casuals in the practice room are worth more than years of tournament data, or why the idiot is part of the MTG brand again.

[Echelon]

On the Forsythe article - we're up for banning anything unless people like it. Hypocritical bullshit. I'm fine with keeping the fun police around (really can't have Legacy without it), but everything else should be susceptible to banning.

[Crimhead]

On the Forsythe article - we're up for banning anything unless people like it. Hypocritical bullshit. I'm fine with keeping the fun police around (really can't have Legacy without it), but everything else should be susceptible to banning.

This is fun policing. Straight up. It's managing The ban list based on what they think players enjoy rather than by tournament data. That's the definition of fun policing, is it not?

Though to be fair, ArFo said:

Every saturation metric we could ever invent would point to it being banned

He didn't say that saturation alone as a metric was ever enough to put a card on the block.
If he is like MaRo, I wouldn't infer anything unless he literally states it.

Wow. Brainstorm is now officially a pillar. Can we lock down this thread now as it's dead?

Why should it be dead? The banned list is not fixed - that's just one card.
If your only interest in ban list updates is whether or not BS gets the axe, then I guess the thread is pretty much dead to you.

I don't care too much about Brainstorm, but I was hoping WotC might change their mind about Workshop in Vintage. But that's only because I want one for EDH.

[kinda]

Do people think Drs will be banned? I think this is the only card with a legitimate possibility.

[Matsu]

I only hope for Fetchlands not being the "pillar of the format"

Based on what Forsyth said, there a many people who don't like Fetchlands, too much shuffling.
Maybe they will ban them because people don't like them

I personaly hate them since they were printed in Onslaught.

At least it will make DRS, Brainstorm less powerful.

[Matsu]

Double post

[thedetoxguy]

I only hope for Fetchlands not being the "pillar of the format"

Based on what Forsyth said, there a many people who don't like Fetchlands, too much shuffling.
Maybe they will ban them because people don't like them

I personaly hate them since they were printed in Onslaught.

At least it will make DRS, Brainstorm less powerful.

They are not going to ban Fetchlands.

[Watersaw]

The difference is one month vs a long time.

Worth noting watetsaws was counting all cantrip decks, not just DRS/cantrip decks. Miracles, Tempo, Storm, S&T, etc. I believe during SDT's heyday cantrip decks were over 70% (hovered between 60%-75%)

Truefax. This data set is only a one month period. Additionally the events vary wildly in size from 200 players to over 1,000. Thirdly SCG Worcester is an outlier with half the Top 8 being a single deck. It's also the second largest event.
God I hate statistics.

Deck - Top 8/Top 4
Deathrite Blue - 16/7 (11/5 being Grixis Delver)
Chalice - 6/4 (4/3 being Dragon Stompy)
Other Blue - 6/2 (4/2 being Miracles)
Loam - 4/3 (4/3 being Lands. wew Addendum: Even though there are no other Loam archetypes represented I didn't want to make lands its own category. Furthermore I'm not that familiar with the deck but all 4/3 appear to be R/G combo lists.)
Cantrip Combo - 3/1 (2/1 being Storm)
NonBlue DRS - 3/1 (2/1 being GSZ decks)

Wonder of Wonders, you are better off sleeving up Chalice of the Void than playing Deathrite Shaman without blue support. Grixis Delver is far and away the best thing you could be doing, even if we ignore SCG Worcester it's score is 7/4. Also worth noting, non-Grixis Blue Deathrite decks comes in at 5/2, making them worse overall than Chalice (6/4) and NonDRS, NonCombo Blue (6/2).

Forsythe on Twitter tonight: https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/985674571188588544

Replying to someone saying Workshop needs a restriction in Vintage, he says:



Is this as close as we've come to an official "no, we're never going to ban Brainstorm" statement?

well shit.

[Echelon]

This is fun policing. Straight up. It's managing The ban list based on what they think players enjoy rather than by tournament data. That's the definition of fun policing, is it not?

Fun police to me is the suite of 0 mana counters we have available.

If Brainstorm is to never be banned, at least entertain the idea of banning the next worst offender (so Ponder).

Every blue deck nowadays starts off w/ 4 Brainstorm & 4 Ponder and is very likely to run 4 FoW & 4 Daze as well. Add in some lands and about 50% of every deck is pretty much set in stone before even a single choice is made. Am I the only one that finds that boring..?