All B/R update speculation.

[CabalTherapy]

Of course I'm not pro. I play legacy mainly. And I'm not sure why people think that just because I think brainstorm is overpowered therefore I'm not good at this game. Everytime I bring it up, I have people say, "well that's what you should play if you want to win", or as a man on a facebook put it, I would understand why the card is fine if I day two GPs and make top 8's and didn't suck. I do well at almost every event I play at. Locally and 20-60 man event I've top 8'd every one of them the past 4 months. It's not a matter of being bad at this game, it's a matter of realizing when a card is very blatantly overpowered

I was simply referring to your deck building enthusiasm not your achievements.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Considering Legacy and/or MtG in wider scope, I came to a conclusion that the most I like about the game is Sloshthedark.
Granted, he's a nice, funny, and interesting person, and we share a lot. But the main crux is that he's exactly like a bit younger version of me before I fell into coma. When I see him, I see my past, and as he's a bit few years younger than me, I also see the future that could have been my present, if I weren't to welk in the dusk for the ages.

[rlesko]

Why is everyone so focused on brainstorm?

The argument that you can't be successful brewing new things is incorrect. BR reanimator just graced us with its presence and that features no new cards in the past 5 or so years (I'm aware CB is in some lists but its not required). Who knows what else we haven't figured out yet? Hell, the last GP winning deck was a bit of a "brew"...

There are plenty of nonblue decks that are not only playable but in fact tier 1.

I'm beginning to understand now why people don't bother posting here. This is the "B&R speculation", though apparently it should be renamed to have something to do with brainstorm, because it is impossible to discuss any other cards without people collectively shitting themselves at the thought of other cards being ban worthy.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Brainstorm overpowered? That's FAKE news!! Sad

[tescrin]

One thing that also strucks me is kind of the disparity of answers of some of the members here. Coming from the humanities or literary studies to be more precise, it's really agonizing for me how some people (no, not you Lemnear; not this time) deal with such a concept as Legacy, which basically is nothing else that a genre of mtg. Especially regarding the whole "ban BS" discussion one can see so many flawed arguments, where people simply don't take their time or maybe don't have the capabilities to take a step back and reflect upon Legacy, mtg, and their own opinions. Thus, making a discussion here completely useless because some suspects return from time to time to the thread, call out some shitty data or just write a line about how BS is overpowered. It's purely my fault I read this thread and the only thing that makes me laugh is the point that Wizards won't read those whiny and salty posts.

Argument from [False] Authority much? You wanna get into bad argumentation, you lay out no argument to show that the other arguments are bad; and you claim to be some intellectual because you took a couple of fucking social studies courses. Do I walk in here like "Lol I'm a comp sci who works in security and AI, that means I'm a fucking genius"; nah. Because it's about the argument, not the person.

The people who post that there is an obvious correlation with Brainstorm-penetration over time and the comparisons to other banned cards make a good case. The only people who can't see that they make that case either have no understanding of statistics, don't appreciate that all of the logic for previous banned cards (Cruise, DTT, Misstep) applies to BS in particular, or simply don't want it banned and put a brick wall to the actual arguments being made.

The fact is; you have to refute why Misstep should be banned and not BS. Why Survival and not BS? Survival had multiple deck archs, and Misstep was in fucking Zoo. Cruise was in anything that could run it and it didn't push out Miracles or many other archtypes. Why those cards and not BS? The burden is on you to show why those cards were bannable in a diverse metagame, but not BS when the statistics are *worse*. EDIT: Hell, Maverick of all things was a big deck during Cruise; because it ate the Cruise decks.

I can give a shit either way. But by logical consistency argumentation or statistical argumentation, or just looking at the penetration of brainstorm in the format as a function of time; it's very very obvious that the Ban side has the right of it because the "don't ban" side puts up a bunch of non-argumentation as their counter. Read your post and find a place where you provide evidence or even a logical premise->conclusion that works. You can't.

The only arguments against it is that it would potentially kill the format and "why now if not the last 10 years?" The diversity argument is out the window; because Survival, Misstep, Cruise, and DTT had "diverse" metagames. The "it makes the game better" is a subjective batch of garbage just like the other side. You have no high horse here. The idea that you start your post with "I'm basically an intellectual because I took a couple of courses in social studies one time" is arbitrarily close to being obvious trolling. Not saying it was, I don't think it was; but if someone wanted to troll that's a good first line.

[rlesko]

Its interesting, I'm not sure if anyone actually has provided a counterargument to my original case as to why Deathrite doesn't deserve a ban "BUT BRAINSTORM!" is not a sound counterargument.

There are compelling arguments both for and against the potential banning of brainstorm, but I'm trying to avoid that discussion in general, albeit extremely unsuccessfully.

@dice you want T1 Lackey again? Cool, I'm down for it. Lets get the ball rolling by banning Deathrite.

[Chatto]

Its interesting, I'm not sure if anyone actually has provided a counterargument to my original case as to why Deathrite doesn't deserve a ban "BUT BRAINSTORM!" is not a sound counterargument.

There are compelling arguments both for and against the potential banning of brainstorm, but I'm trying to avoid that discussion in general, albeit extremely unsuccessfully.

@dice you want T1 Lackey again? Cool, I'm down for it. Lets get the ball rolling by banning Deathrite.

I'm not for banning Brainstorm, nor am I for a DRS-ban. It's just that people go in circles, like a record on repeat: first there are those who want to ban card A, then people counter this calling for a ban, screaming for card B to be banned. Then, out of nowhere (somewhere) someone yells 'what about card C? Let's ban card C'... Then silence, because card C is just absurd to be named in this thread, so people just stop looking at this thread. After a while somebody calls for card D to be unbanned, but really means card A is OP, and we start all over again.

I think your arguments make sense, rlesko, but at the end of the day it won't make any difference. Calling for a ban for one card or the other will make people lose their minds. It really doesn't matter what you want, in the end everything stays the same. Just try to enjoy the game, and remember it could be worse (looking at you, Modern)

[solidbass]

I think all the"cantrip" creatures should be banned. So Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster Mage, Young Pyromancer, Deathrite Shaman, Delver of Secrets, etc. Cantrips seem fine as long as they aren't powering up dumb OP creatures. I think Emrakul and Griselbrand should be banned too. I don't mind show and tell but when you show and tell in a: "LOL I win now" creature it seems dumb. What if you could show in tell in some creature that immediately made the opponent lose the game? Obviously OP and would be banned. How far are Emrakul and Griselbrand from this? Like 5%?
These bannings are excessive and brainstorm basically powers all of these strategies, but for me, I would miss the consistency that Brainstorm brings.

[Rascalyote]

I think it's silly to have miracles be a deck to beat for years, then people respond to it by going into Abrupt Decay (and deathrite shaman because it slots into the same deck most of the time) then call for a Deathrite Shaman ban. Obviously Shaman is too good and shouldn't have been a 1/2 or be able to be cast off black or produce any colour but there are other cards in magic that were 'mistakes' and we just have to live with them.

I'm of the opinion that nothing should be banned and we should bring back older cards like Earthcraft, MindTwist, Goblin Recruiter and Survival (and then ban it again if it's too good which I highly doubt). If deathrite got banned I'd hope they took something from miracles as well (like Terminus) but again I'd strongly prefer nothing got banned as I am having fun with the format and think it's quite good despite it not being 100% perfect.

[Ephemeron]

All the anti-Brainstorm and anti-DRS people need to get together and realize that you all have a common enemy you should spend your time complaining about: fetchlands. They enable pretty much everything that's been bitched about in the last couple pages. Brainstorm does a good Ancestral Recall impression because you constantly have the ability to shuffle away the chaff. Without the ability to shuffle your library on a whim, the card is much less impressive. The only reason DRS sees so much play is because fetchlands make it a bird of paradise that's actually good to draw in the late game. A couple years ago while DRS was getting banned in modern and dominating legacy, it was seeing absolutely zero play in standard, and that's because the other abilities are nice, but not good enough when you don't have a way to have it reliably be a mana dork. Hell, even the creep of blue decks being able to play whatever other colors they want has more to do with fetchlands making perfect mana than anything DRS has ever done. It would be a lot more interesting if greedy blue decks had to go back to something like Flood Plain instead of Flooded Strand. Would it be worth slowing down a turn in order to enable greedy mana? That would probably help open the door for more aggro decks that could punish the slower mana.

For the record, I don't want to see any of these cards banned, I just feel like a lot of these arguments are missing the forest for the trees. There's a common enabler that, to me, seems to be causing all the dissatisfaction. I do agree with the premise that if Brainstorm had been printed in Kaladesh and instantly had the kind impact that it currently has, it would probably be axed like Cruise and Dig. I'm fine with DRS being one of the best cards in the format, because while it's super powerful, it's just a creature and is an extremely interactive card that leads to a lot of interesting gameplay, especially when faced against something like Snapcaster Mage.

[ESG]

It would be a lot more interesting if greedy blue decks had to go back to something like Flood Plain instead of Flooded Strand. Would it be worth slowing down a turn in order to enable greedy mana?

Flood Plain wouldn't be playable because Wasteland would be even better. Lands that enter the battlefield tapped are very difficult to justify in a fast format. Fetchlands provide a buffer against Wasteland in that you can play them out uncracked and crack when you're able to pay for whatever 2 CMC or 3 CMC spell you want to cast that turn.

Fetchlands are definitely powerful, but banning them would result in the need for players to run full playsets of duals to fix mana issues. Fetchlands actually play a very valuable role in keeping the format more affordable.

[Ronald Deuce]

Sure is a lot of complaining about utility cards in this thread. Can't say I remember the last time a T1 "land, utility card, pass" shut me out of the game.

Still haven't heard a response to my query as to whether having a strategy—not a singular card, especially not one that allows a large number of decks to exist—saturate the format constitutes the real problem. (Fortunately, Legacy doesn't have that problem.)

When I hear people say there's no merit to anti-anti-Brainstorm arguments or that fetchlands are overpowered, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Another thing I'll say again (because if I've said it once, I might as well say it a trillion times): banning the most powerful, most ubiquitous card in a format doesn't solve the format. Power and popularity are—by nature—relative.

[Dice_Box]

Still haven't heard a response to my query as to whether having a strategy—not a singular card, especially not one that allows a large number of decks to exist—saturate the format constitutes the real problem. (Fortunately, Legacy doesn't have that problem.)

Legacy does indeed that that issue, Turbo Xerox is that problem. As for debating it, look if your views haven't changed at this point there not going to. Like mine aren't. There really is no point I feel in arguing. The energy spent debating this would be better spent masturbating. That's far more enjoyable and at least someone wins.

[CabalTherapy]

I am heavily disappointed that some harsh bloke offends me and his comment isn't deleted. There is no reason to become personal but some people simply can't help themselves.
If you want to talk about my university education you can message me, com sci. Until then you should read posts carefully because you might misunderstand them with all the
salt in your systems. But, you know what, in a discussion it starts with the person -sure, arguments count- but the person has to provide them. I didn't try to but to point out how
flawed and pointless some contributions are.

I'm out.

[Chatto]

I am heavily disappointed that some harsh bloke offends me and his comment isn't deleted. There is no reason to become personal but some people simply can't help themselves.
If you want to talk about my university education you can message me, com sci. Until then you should read posts carefully because you might misunderstand them with all the
salt in your systems. But, you know what, in a discussion it starts with the person -sure, arguments count- but the person has to provide them. I didn't try to but to point out how
flawed and pointless some contributions are.

I'm out.

Say what now?

[Zombie]

Say what now?

Didn't liken tescrin's callout, it seems.

[ScottW]

I am heavily disappointed that some harsh bloke offends me and his comment isn't deleted.

I reported the post as well. I'm not sure why the mods don't suspend accounts of members who repeatedly write inappropriate personal or general comments. Discourse should be directly related to the subject at hand and unrelated direct negativity should get a warning followed by a suspension of the account if it happens again.
People obviously get upset and inappropriately blow off steam but everyone knows the few individuals who make threads toxic. I have fallen into the trap of responding to this negativity and ratchet up the negativity, which always has resulted in the posts being deleted. Hopefully, a member can simply report the initial thread and then the problem will be addressed.

[Michael Keller]

I am heavily disappointed that some harsh bloke offends me and his comment isn't deleted. There is no reason to become personal but some people simply can't help themselves.
If you want to talk about my university education you can message me, com sci. Until then you should read posts carefully because you might misunderstand them with all the
salt in your systems. But, you know what, in a discussion it starts with the person -sure, arguments count- but the person has to provide them. I didn't try to but to point out how
flawed and pointless some contributions are.

I'm out.

+1.

[Dice_Box]

Two things. The fist post that was double reported is gone. The second post, that Cabal is bitching about, was fine.

As for people, I can't and won't talk about what is said behind closed doors. If you wish to say something though, feel free to pm a staff member. We are always open to looking into things. Bitching in a thread like this won't change a thing of we don't see it.

[btm10]

Its interesting, I'm not sure if anyone actually has provided a counterargument to my original case as to why Deathrite doesn't deserve a ban "BUT BRAINSTORM!" is not a sound counterargument.

There are compelling arguments both for and against the potential banning of brainstorm, but I'm trying to avoid that discussion in general, albeit extremely unsuccessfully.

@dice you want T1 Lackey again? Cool, I'm down for it. Lets get the ball rolling by banning Deathrite.

Deathrite is definitely the best 1-drop ever, but I don't think it's that egregiously overpowered in a world where casting Terminus and Griselbrand for one mana are also tier one strategies.

The people who post that there is an obvious correlation with Brainstorm-penetration over time and the comparisons to other banned cards make a good case. The only people who can't see that they make that case either have no understanding of statistics, don't appreciate that all of the logic for previous banned cards (Cruise, DTT, Misstep) applies to BS in particular, or simply don't want it banned and put a brick wall to the actual arguments being made.

The fact is; you have to refute why Misstep should be banned and not BS. Why Survival and not BS? Survival had multiple deck archs, and Misstep was in fucking Zoo. Cruise was in anything that could run it and it didn't push out Miracles or many other archtypes. Why those cards and not BS? The burden is on you to show why those cards were bannable in a diverse metagame, but not BS when the statistics are *worse*. EDIT: Hell, Maverick of all things was a big deck during Cruise; because it ate the Cruise decks.

The biggest problem with Misstep and the Delve draw spells (relative to Brainstorm) is that the play patterns they create are problematic for more people than the play patterns created by cantrips in and of themselves. This is obviously a subjective criterion, but it both seems to be the operative criterion when it comes to banning decisions and lots of people actively enjoy the Xerox approach, despite the tone of this thread.