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 1111 of 1178 FirstFirst ... 11161110111061110111071108110911101111111211131114111511211161 ... LastLast
Results 22,201 to 22,220 of 23542

Thread: All B/R update speculation.

  1. #22201

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    ... then when they switch up to grapeshot, you get them with the white leyline. Ez win!

  2. #22202

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Leylines best Legacy deck confirmed!

  3. #22203
    Member
    pettdan's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts

    704

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Wizard View Post
    That's a good point about Leyline of the Void, but how do you beat Show and Tell? ANT/TES can still make a bunch of goblin tokens even without the graveyard, vs most decks, 10+ goblin tokens is game over.
    So, constructing a sideboard to complement a deck's main weaknesses is complicated, one card doesn't solve every problem. Decks can run LotV to have t0 interaction vs combo, they don't have to run Fow or blue, that was I think my point. When TES goes for goblins, that typically gives you a couple of turns to respond. So no more t0 requirement of free spells. You can play for example plague engineer, pyroclasm, stoneforge into batterskull or engineered explosives. The leyline forces the opponent into a suboptimal win condition that you can respond to with your fair deck. Chances also increase that you survive until turn one and get to cast Deafening silence.

    As for Show and Tell, that's very rarely something you need to interact with on t0 (t0 includes opponent's turn one, right?), it can be interacted with by spells that you actually pay mana for. Also, the cards that interact with it can actually be put into play with the SnT, such as Ensnaring bridge, oblivion ring, Ethersworn canonist, thalia or karakas. (Dear Wizards, if you read this, please give us Oblivion Ring with a split second etb effect!)

    Re: veil
    Anyway, I feel like the discussion on Veil is interesting but a bit hard to dive into. I think on a first level, we need to consider how it changes the balance of combo decks, blue fair decks, and non-blue fair decks. Combo decks gain an edge towards fair blue decks, but lose an edge vs fair non-blue decks. Fair blue decks that play green gain an edge vs fair blue decks that don't play green, overall fair blue decks don't gain much here, they gain vs fair non-blue black decks but lose an edge vs fair non-blue non-black decks. Et cetera... It's more complicated but I'll settle for that.

    If this changes the balance to where combo decks rule, if we get combo winter, then a ban is motivated. But if it changes the power a little bit from blue to non-blue, that's probably healthy for the meta. Also, it makes stack interaction more varied and that's interesting, I get the feeling that it's mainly a problem if you expect to always come out on top with your fow and discard. Veil still does nothing to stop show and tell or a jace, I think it seems very fair.
    Last edited by pettdan; 02-05-2020 at 09:08 AM.

  4. #22204
    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 Water_Wizard View Post
    The quotes you have from Ian talk about how UW is playing Green and why. Wilson says, if you didn't have Astrolabe, Veil, and (likely Ice-Fang Coatl), the cost to play Oko in UW would be too high. However, the combination of Astrolabe and Veil (and perhaps Ice Fang) all of a sudden make it worth it to splash Green in UW for Oko. He has a good point.

    Each player is going to have their own preferences and likely defend them, consciously or subconsciously. The argument against Veil is that it is seeing play in a lot of decks, it's seeing play in aggressive decks (vs. defensive decks), it tends to overpower games, it negates a ton of healthy cards in the format in an unhealthy way, and it skews the color balance in a historically-upending way.
    The question at hand is, why is this a bad thing?

    You seem to say that the historicity of UW running Red is an example of "color balance" yet UW splashing Green is not? Please explain how and why this is, in your words, a "skew?" In either case, three colors are represented. When then is your notion of "balance?" Somehow that Green should be excluded from a prospective UW deck? Under what auspices are we to regard this as "balance" rather than historically necessitated exclusion?

    In other words, why should we regard the historicity of Red as a "splash color" as somehow "rightful" and this "new" Green splash as somehow illegitimate due to it's lack of established historical precedence?

    Not to mention, if the card is not dominant, or oppressive, why are we regarding it as "ban-worthy" at all? You list several more things as "problems" but with no data or examples to found them on, as far as I can tell.

    "Sees play in a lot of decks." OK, so does Polluted Delta, or Ponder. Please explain why this criteria is, one, founded, and two, an issue.

    "Sees play in aggressive (vs. defense decks)." Please explain, one, what each category is (that is, what makes something aggressive vs defensive) and two, provide evidence not only that this divide takes place, but also that it is an issue. Here we return to the notion that this card is somehow rightfully intended to be defensive, not aggressive. Which, even aside the nebulous conception of that dichotomy, is not something I've seen any evidence for, aside people's simple speculation.

    "It tends to overpower games." What does this mean? That, in games where the outcome is predicated on resolving spells through Blue (or Black) disruption, that Veil gives an ability to fight through that? Even if we take this on faith, why is this a problem? Again, a historical call to the notion that Blue and Black disruption is "rightful" in it's effectiveness and so anything that might diminish this is "overpowered?"

    "It negates a ton of healthy cards in any unhealthy way." Please explain this further. What has been negated? In what way was this negation "unhealthy?" What makes cards healthy or unhealthy?

    I am trying to read what you are saying as charitably as I can, but all I continue to find are seeming appeals to historical notions and subjective valuations that I honestly have no idea how to evaluate as factual or not.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  5. #22205
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Tagging onto @H; seeing too much play isn't enough for a ban, particularly when a card is enabling starkly diverse strategies.

    The unhealthiest part of Veil is that it inexplicably counters non-blue/non-black counterspells. While this is dumb, it's ultimately fine for the format. Same can be said of Breach; there is no excuse for that card not saying "may only cast if this is the first spell you would cast this turn" as you can uninteractively play around removal (even in standard) by immediately playing a second one from the yard...but it's fine. On Karn, that [-2] should say wish for cmc X or less, X = current loyalty on resolution; correct design would have kept Mycosynth Lattice out of the discussion, saving modern a laughable ban. Astrolabe should cost to activate, the list goes on...

  6. #22206

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    Not to mention, if the card is not dominant, or oppressive, why are we regarding it as "ban-worthy" at all? You list several more things as "problems" but with no data or examples to found them on, as far as I can tell
    Why do you have to analyze everything with your relentless logic?

  7. #22207
    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 Seymour_Asses View Post
    Why do you have to analyze everything with your relentless logic?
    Well, at the best of times, I'd like to think I am a sort of idiot-Socrates. I don't think we can have any thing like a productive conversation is we can't, for example, agree that we should be talking about facts of the matter, or what constitutes a fact of the matter. Once we have those, we still need to have the conversation as to what those facts could or should mean.

    Of course, I am not even 1/100th's as smart as Socrates, nor even close to as eloquent (or at least to Plato, if we want to go that direction). However, it does really bother me when there is a failure to even attempt to frame a discussion in a way that can actually be something like productive. Just endlessly repeating the same opinions back at each other is what gets us to 1,100 pages of what, exactly?

    Or something like that, I don't know.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  8. #22208

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    Well, at the best of times, I'd like to think I am a sort of idiot-Socrates. I don't think we can have any thing like a productive conversation is we can't, for example, agree that we should be talking about facts of the matter, or what constitutes a fact of the matter. Once we have those, we still need to have the conversation as to what those facts could or should mean.

    Of course, I am not even 1/100th's as smart as Socrates, nor even close to as eloquent (or at least to Plato, if we want to go that direction). However, it does really bother me when there is a failure to even attempt to frame a discussion in a way that can actually be something like productive. Just endlessly repeating the same opinions back at each other is what gets us to 1,100 pages of what, exactly?

    Or something like that, I don't know.
    Your problem is you expect a productive conversation in the thread that is literally the containment thread so the rest of the forums are readable.

  9. #22209
    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 Wrath of Pie View Post
    Your problem is you expect a productive conversation in the thread that is literally the containment thread so the rest of the forums are readable.
    Yeah, maybe I am just a sucker for unachievable quests. Those are sort of the best kinds of quests, since you never get the disappointment of having finished them...
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  10. #22210
    Sushi or Meat and Eggs
    Cire's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Posts

    2,251

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    The issue is that there is no standard that is purely objective. Well there could be, but Wizard's own standards are not. Current standards are subjective of Feel and Health and both of them are proxies for historicity. What I mean by this is that when a card is Dominating or too powerful and is played everywhere the arguments for a ban rely on what came before - dominating or too powerful in this instance are always proxies for "this card is being played more than these other cards which I subjectively think are healthy" and "I subjectively think they are healthy because that's what was played prior to this card's appearance."

    It's Historicity all the way down. If you want to go pure objective you need to come up with a rubric that (1) would ban "overpowered cards" without banning "widely played cards and accepted", and (2) explain the difference between "overpowered cards" and "widely played cards and accepted" that isn't just "widely played cards and accepted" have been historically accepted.

    Once you remove Historicity as an argument entirely, how do you justify any ban? Any ban requires Historicity as a foundational principal. Arguing for a healthy metagame, an even distribution of colors, anything really, requires you to state that some state prior to the targeted card was preferable. But state was only preferable either due to subjective standards or due to historical bias.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    You sir are a ninja of fine quality.

  11. #22211

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    The issue is that there is no standard that is purely objective. Well there could be,
    No, there can't. You can set a specific quantifiable threshold of how many copies of the card are allowed to be in the winners metagame, or the winrate of the decks using the card, and ban the card when it violates these thresholds, but this is only "objective" insofar as you have a specific, quantifiable metric that decides when cards should be banned. The level at which this threshold is set and the reason for instituting the threshold in the first place still only has a subjective justification. (One possible way to make it as "objective" as possible might be to perform a widespread poll of the playerbase to determine which levels are most widely accepted, but I doubt this would lead to desired results, as Brainstorm would probably be the first card on the chopping block regardless when using these kinds of quantitative cutoffs).

    but Wizard's own standards are not. Current standards are subjective of Feel and Health and both of them are proxies for historicity. What I mean by this is that when a card is Dominating or too powerful and is played everywhere the arguments for a ban rely on what came before - dominating or too powerful in this instance are always proxies for "this card is being played more than these other cards which I subjectively think are healthy" and "I subjectively think they are healthy because that's what was played prior to this card's appearance."

    It's Historicity all the way down. If you want to go pure objective you need to come up with a rubric that (1) would ban "overpowered cards" without banning "widely played cards and accepted", and (2) explain the difference between "overpowered cards" and "widely played cards and accepted" that isn't just "widely played cards and accepted" have been historically accepted.

    Once you remove Historicity as an argument entirely, how do you justify any ban? Any ban requires Historicity as a foundational principal. Arguing for a healthy metagame, an even distribution of colors, anything really, requires you to state that some state prior to the targeted card was preferable. But state was only preferable either due to subjective standards or due to historical bias.
    Yes, a certain metagame state will only ever be preferable for subjective reasons. Attempting to argue otherwise is impossible so the only way forward is to accept this.
    I would rather characterise cards that need to be banned as "damaging to format health" rather than "overpowered"
    From there it's easy to justify bans without using historicity, here is an example argument for banning veil:

    1. The primary goal of a ban should be to make the games more enjoyable. (Yes, subjective. Subjectivity is unavoidable)
    2. Games are more enjoyable when players have more opportunity to make meaningful decisions in-game. "Meaningful decisions" can be defined as nontrivial (i.e. made with consideration for the specific matchup and gamestate) decisions where the outcome significantly influences who wins. (Yes, subjective. Subjectivity is unavoidable)
    3. A large subset of cards that promote meaningful decisions are black discard and removal and blue counterspells, both because these are reactive/disruptive cards that prolong the game (in longer games the players will naturally draw more cards and take more turns and therefore have more opportunity to make decisions) and because using the cards themselves involve decisions (what to take with a discard spell, whether to counter a certain spell or save the counter for later, etc). (You can try to claim that the potential for any card to "promote meaningful in-game decisions" is an arbitrary assessment but I think it's pretty difficult to argue in good faith that e.g. Chalice of the Void makes a more positive contribution than Brainstorm)
    4. [WARNING: STILL SOMEWHAT HYPOTHETICAL] The presence of Veil of Summer in the format weakens these interactive cards and discourages people from playing them, instead promoting archetypes that reduce the influence of meaningful decisions by aiming to interact as little as possible (TES, UG Omni, Underworld Breach)
    5. The format would therefore be improved if Veil of Summer was banned.

    You just have to discard your aversion to "subjective standards" by accepting that there is no way to get around this 'problem'

  12. #22212
    3-point-shooter

    Join Date

    Feb 2006
    Posts

    528

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    1. The primary goal of a ban should be to make the games more enjoyable. (Yes, subjective. Subjectivity is unavoidable)
    2. Games are more enjoyable when players have more opportunity to make meaningful decisions in-game. "Meaningful decisions" can be defined as nontrivial (i.e. made with consideration for the specific matchup and gamestate) decisions where the outcome significantly influences who wins. (Yes, subjective. Subjectivity is unavoidable)
    3. A large subset of cards that promote meaningful decisions are black discard and removal and blue counterspells, both because these are reactive/disruptive cards that prolong the game (in longer games the players will naturally draw more cards and take more turns and therefore have more opportunity to make decisions) and because using the cards themselves involve decisions (what to take with a discard spell, whether to counter a certain spell or save the counter for later, etc). (You can try to claim that the potential for any card to "promote meaningful in-game decisions" is an arbitrary assessment but I think it's pretty difficult to argue in good faith that e.g. Chalice of the Void makes a more positive contribution than Brainstorm)
    4. [WARNING: STILL SOMEWHAT HYPOTHETICAL] The presence of Veil of Summer in the format weakens these interactive cards and discourages people from playing them, instead promoting archetypes that reduce the influence of meaningful decisions by aiming to interact as little as possible (TES, UG Omni, Underworld Breach)
    5. The format would therefore be improved if Veil of Summer was banned.
    1. Subjectivity is unavoidable.
    2. Subjectivity is unavoidable. Yes, in-game decision is a big part of the game, but so is deck building/metagaming/consistency.
    3. A great example of subjective statement culminating to "but I think it's pretty difficult to argue in good faith that e.g. Chalice of the Void makes a more positive contribution than Brainstorm".
    Are you seriously comparing a 2-mana to a 1-mana spell? (Yes, Chalice is 0-mana in Vintage hence justifiably restricted.) Brainstorm would be completely innocuous at 1U, and imagine Chalice to cost 1, my fear would be as great as yours. Without taking mana cost into your argument, you can apply the same logic and exchange Brainstorm by Ancestral Recall!
    4. Yes, it is very hypothetical! Remember other parts of the game including deck building and metagaming? It will be a meaningful talk when green/red/white visibly dominates the format.
    5. It is difficult to judge the conclusion, but the logic line is rather broken. What could be in your mind, the format would therefore be a lot similar to pre-core set 2020. Legacy is not meant to be a stagnant format after all, there is Old School for that. Deal with the changes, and we need much more than subjective statements to ban a card.
    On the Sep 2011 Ban List Updates,
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancer View Post
    Yep DCI/Wizards never fails... those that cry the loudest wins!

  13. #22213
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Well, I do agree that subjectivity is unavoidable. In fact, I am not against subjectivity, rather, I am specifically for it. The issue is how do we use it responsibly, rationally and reasonably?

    That being said, the nature and justification of that subjective valuation is the whole key.

    For example, lets take the Chalice of the Void case. While we can consider that, subjectively, one does not "have fun" being locked behind a Chalice for 1 with a hand of one-man spells. However, I think it is facile and flatly short-sighting to end the valuation process there. Not to mention, under what auspices do we discount the subjective valuation of the Chalice player? By making a normative claim? On what do we base that?

    I think Chalice can be viewed a metagame and deck-building stressor, that turns the "naturalist" fact of the efficacy of efficiency and optimization back against itself. I believe this is, in fact, a good thing. It is one of the few factors that pushes against a "race to the lowest" CMC cards possible and one of the few forces against Xerox style strategies that is actually effective. Minus Chalice, there is essentially no reason to ever not be 100% mana-cost optimized (that is, the lowest possible CMC is best).

    So, to me, we have to subjectively evaluate all the aspects of a given claim. So, it is not that we should not consider, say, historicity, but rather, that we should not consider historicity alone as sufficient cause for action. The same goes for ubiquity, or any of the other criteria that should be considered, but not alone.

    As for the claim that Veil is pushing people to run decks that either use or don't care about Veil, or that it has lead to a decline in Blue and Black disruption, seems, well, completely unproven aside being totally hypothetical. What if it's the case that people who were on ANT switched to TES? Or, were on Ur Sneak and now on Ug Onmi, or that people want to try to new combo-deck flavor of the week with Breach?

    It is kind of funny how many people will complain that homogeneity of the meta-game is a problem, then something comes in and alters that status-quo, then suddenly that is a problem.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  14. #22214
    Member
    pettdan's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts

    704

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I'm struggling to find a thread of relevance in this discussion, sorry if I'm missing the whole point of it. Of course it's subjective what makes the game enjoyable and also what makes for good business decisions for WotC (well, that's a bit less subjective I guess). Here is a brief guide on how we can present our arguments for bans in a more transparent way (with some examples within citation marks), which I guess is what this discussion boils down to:

    1) What is your intuition ("Ban card x, it's too good for y-decks")
    2) What values do you use do define a good format ("Y-decks shouldn't dominate the meta, we need variance, at least 3 tier-1 decks with strategic diversity and not a huge distance to a couple of remaining tier-2-decks")
    3) What rational reasons/observations, based on your values, support your intuition ("deck Y made up 50% of the last big tournament's top8").

  15. #22215
    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 pettdan View Post
    how we can present our arguments for bans in a more transparent way
    This is exactly what I am driving at. My apologies if I fail to get that across.

    It is about being up-front and transparent about just why you want X.

    For example, if you want Veil banned, because you feel that it is miserable to play against, then say that and make that case as to how and why you find it so. Don't try to frame it a sort of objective fact of the matter when it isn't. Own the subjectivity and make the case from there. Trying to frame your subjective valuation as if it is an objective fact is, to me, just a poor method of argumentation.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  16. #22216
    Member
    pettdan's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts

    704

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    This is exactly what I am driving at. My apologies if I fail to get that across.
    You probably got it through, there were just so many good points I didn't know what to make of it. Feel free to refine the list. I'll try to remember to use it myself.

  17. #22217

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Now we're on the trolley!

  18. #22218
    Member

    Join Date

    Aug 2015
    Location

    The woods again
    Posts

    1,096

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    For example, lets take the Chalice of the Void case. While we can consider that, subjectively, one does not "have fun" being locked behind a Chalice for 1 with a hand of one-man spells. However, I think it is facile and flatly short-sighting to end the valuation process there. Not to mention, under what auspices do we discount the subjective valuation of the Chalice player? By making a normative claim? On what do we base that?
    Ok, I'll try to answer this as best I can.

    Mental Misstep counters a one-costed card for free. It is banned allegedly because it is too powerful (hits most format staples for free) and because the extremely paltry investment required to run it allows pretty much anyone to use it, meaning that it warps the metagame. A secondary concern is that if you don't want to play Mental Misstep, the best way to beat Mental Misstep is to play more expensive cards exclusively for the purpose of beating Mental Misstep. (You could also choose not to play spells.) As above, that warps the metagame. The fact that this card—which shares many pertinent traits with Chalice of the Void—is banned indicates that there is a reason to examine Chalice of the Void critically.

    Chalice of the Void set to one counters every one-costed card for the entire game for a single two-mana investment. It requires mana (unlike Mental Misstep, a banned card) and is symmetrical, so it requires people who run it to avoid 1-cmc cards. It's often argued that Chalice of the Void is, as a result, difficult to integrate into a deck and is not universal, so it isn't warping the metagame. However, it also is facilitated by lands that produce twice the mana all other lands worth playing produce, meaning that those powerful cards allow one to use another powerful card; arguments that there's a "deckbuilding cost" to running Chalice are invalid because the supporting apparatus is, in and of itself, more economical than what other decks are using. Like Mental Misstep (a banned card), Chalice of the Void forces players to play more expensive cards exclusively for the purpose of beating Chalice of the Void. [EDIT: I should mention that comparably costed cards with similar effects, like Sphere of Resistance, necessitate paying even more mana for answers at any cmc, meaning that the two synergize to make relatively poor cards even worse for their already-comparatively-steep costs.] In other words, it is warping the metagame, because cheaper cards are better than more expensive analogues and will perform better against anything that doesn't play Chalice of the Void. Chalice of the Void can also be cast at a sliding cost, which means that it has greater versatility than Mental Misstep (a banned card). Another fun fact: Chalice of the Void cannot be countered by Mental Misstep, but it counters Mental Misstep.

    None of that is subjective. If I were to be subjective in my assessment, I'd say what I've said before: There is not a single deck I play that is most worried about seeing a Chalice of the Void out of every threat it can face. Storm folds harder to Thorn of Amethyst/Sphere of Resistance at the same cost, all my graveyard decks regularly eat it against free graveyard hate, my fast-combo decks are prey to elementary countermagic, and Burn's most concerned about facing any of the other decks I play. But every deck I play (except manaless Dredge) absolutely doesn't want to see a Chalice of the Void.
    Last edited by Ronald Deuce; 02-07-2020 at 01:25 AM.
    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.

  19. #22219
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    The difference is chalice requires real build arounds, has restrictions in deck building, and the best answer to chalice isn't more chalice. It can be warping in a way, but it's never enough % of the metagame that you can't feasibly plan to simply dodge it. Also due to the deck building constrictions the decks that play the card tend to be inconsistent and tend to have wildly swingy matchups. I wouldn't argue it's a particularly skill testing or fun card, but it's not nearly as warping as MM
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  20. #22220
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2011
    Posts

    4,771

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Brainstorm requires build-arounds. Without enough fetchlands it's pretty bad. In Pauper, without fetches, it doesn't hold a candle to Preordain and Ponder.

    Force of Will requires build arounds. Without a high blue count it's completely unplayable, and it's not even that good against fair decks.

    Delver of Secrets requires build arounds. Without 28+ instants and sorceries and library manipulation, it never flips and it's just a vanilla Merfolk of the Pearl Trident with a worse tribe.

    These cards are clearly too weak to ban or define a format.

    #BanTarmogoyf

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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