Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
Except no one said that. I was talking about the streamlining into BUGx and the massive overlap of cards, which makes listing every variant as an individual deck kind of a weak point.
It's not that MtgTop8 and other data collection sites differ between TES, ANT, TnT or other storm variants either when painting the metagame pie charts. So why we list the likes of BUGx Control, 4C, Czech Pile and more seperately, other than using the many, little, split percentages as a strawman to call the format diverse? For me many of the decks listed are no distinctive subtypes, but "flavors" of the same midrange deck which can seamlessly blur into tempo or control by just switching your blue creatures with other blue creatures and altering your secondary disruption. It's outright fine to disagree with my decision to not relabel a deck based on running SCM or YP in its secondary creature slot.
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Your argument was not between BUG Control and 4C/Pile (these diferent names for the same deck, you have to use this kind of shadyness in your arguments allready because you can't find a third deck? Can I use Storm and ANT as different decks now too?). Your argument:
Saying Gixis Gelver and BUG contrl/4c are the same because "they add 2 lands and replace gurmag with leovold" s just utter BS.
If I tell my local storm players that ANT and TES are the same deck they will stongly disagree but it sure would be the same deck under your premise, all stompy decks are lands+chalice+stuff, all decks running dark depths+stage are the same pile, S&T+Reanimator all the same because it doen't matter how you cheat Griselbrand into play.
There are two distinct conversations going on here, but I really like this one. I think your evaluation of modern mana-bases is spot on...now imagine no fetchlands for modern. I think it recovers much faster than Legacy because it is already using non-fetchable duals. Legacy on the other hand scrambles for the same real estate that was before only used in Modern. True duals are still better than shocks, but we're not actually sure if shocks are better than other options (fastlands/buddy lands.) In fact I would argue that it wouldn't become a situation of 4x every shockland needed and then other duals. I think it would be some number of shocklands, a higher concentration of fastlands in low-curve decks (like burn), and a higher concentration of buddy lands in higher-curve decks (jeskai control.) Most of the mid-range strategies like jund will probably lean on the filter lands (a la Twilight Mire) a lot more. Affinity, Tron, Eldrazi, Humans...they scoff and carry on as usual. All of this assuming a no-fetch environment.
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
Is it really needed to list all the variants of BUGx BlueShell+DRS aggro-control decks, because it seems that giving just a few example of the same ~45 card core being split up under different names is not enough?
AnT, TES, TnT & Co are always grouped together as "storm" in every metagame analysis (same as various Stompy decks) to make it easier to see what slice the supertype occupies in the metagame.
I merely question, why we can't have the BUGx BlueShell+DRS aggro-control decks grouped together as well to see the actual share the core has in the field compared to other supertypes, but split them up in half a dozen subtypes to cloak the fact that its more than 1/4 of the field.
For the third time: I did not say its "the same". I questioned why similar decks and cores are usually grouped together in metagame charts (like your mentioned storm, stompy, Loam, etc decks), but we don't see that for the BUGx BlueShell+DRS aggro-control decks.
Edit:
MtgTop8 literally differentiates between...
- 4c Stoneblade (aka Deathblade)
- BUG Control
- BUG Midrange
- 4c control
- Grixis Control
- Delver BUG
- Grixis Delver
...which make up for ~28% of the field, yet people point to the "diversity" of the field in order to claim that the BUGx BlueShell+DRS aggro-control shell isn't putting up concering numbers
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
Could you elaborate? I meant that as an honest question, not a dismissive comment. It really does seem like the optimal strategy for people like Mega. If you want:
- cantrips to be bad
- creatures to be the best thing you can be doing
- the combat step being the main thing that matters
- color diversity but not necessarily strategic diversity
- faster metagame changes
- less consistency on a game to game basis
- more regular banning of powerful cards
Then there are formats literally designed around these constraints. Legacy, fortunately, is not, but many of these posters want it to be. Why? If these are things you want, standard is specifically made to be that way, and so is Modern. I'm not trying talk down to anyone, I'm trying to figure out why someone would continue to rail against a status quo that many people enjoy rather than just seeking out the thing that caters to their preferences (and has more WOTC support and a larger player base to boot).
Arguing for more diversity is not equivalent to arguing for your list, it just illustrates your perception of the discussion which is in my view very limited. I tried to summarize some points a short while ago, however not yet touching on the argument that nothing needs to be banned. On that topic, my guess is that most people actually are bored by the large amount of Grixis X/Y being played against other decks or each other in most events, it is making coverage less interesting; maybe this is not representative, maybe it is. Anyway, I suggest you have a look at it to realize why someone would consider the banning of a strongly polarizing card to actually enable more strategies to be played (this sentence already explains it, but if you need more input to understand someone else's view, look below).
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...=1#post1041289
I'm also surprised that no one here has tried to summarize the discussion in a way that would help move it forward over the several years that this topic has been discussed. Or is there such a summary? Please reference it, thanks! If not, maybe you can help me add more perspectives to this summary I made so a more representative version can be written. I'm afraid I still did not add the comments provided directly after posting it.
Edit: actually, if someone could write a concise summary on why nothing needs to be changed, that would be very nice, I'd like to add it (with a reference) to the post.
At this point we have to agree to disagree, those are 6 Different Decks to me (BUG Control/Midrange is one to me). Yes the diffences might be small, but they are still very relevant or why are 4C and Grixis Delver cleary the best decks of those listed even if they are all the same.
If you want to differentiate by playstyle the I would sill make these "UBx Midrange" and "Delver Variants" even though that is allready a very braod definition
You sound like your only resonable meta split would be Aggro, Midrange, etc... But thats honestly not how legacy works.
This is why I hate using numbers. You can make them say whatever you want if you frame them correctly. Sure, this pile of five distinct strategies is 28% of the metagame if you decide to group them together. If one deck was putting up 30% of the field, yes it would be concerning. But it’s not. You just lump stuff together to be able to say “look, the numbers PROVE my opinion is correct”.
ANT and TES get lumped together because there isn’t enough TES to be a meaningful metagame portion. Moon stompy variations are lumped together because you fight them all roughly the same. They aren’t exactly strategically diverse.
Sure, I am totally fine, if you and others see more differences than I do. Personally, most of the differences in the BUGx decks appear to be smaller than between ANT/TES, LegendMiracles/PonderMiracles, various Stompy decks, Loam variants and more, yet all but the BUGx ones are/were commonly thrown together for metagame analysis reasons. It somewhat irks me that we don't do such for a core with (imo) so much overlap and a ~28% meta share as a whole, because the 28% would have quite a weight in discussing the effect DRS + BlueShell has on the format. At least thats my 0.02$.
Edit:
I personally can't tell you by looking at the decklists at MtgTop8 where some BUG Control end and the Czech Piles or Grixis Controls start, so if you see 5 different decks despite the site listing them as several archetypes (often with just 1% metashare!) that's fine with me, but feels like a smokescreen in the discussion about the supertype/core and it's effect on the meta.
We had people raging in the past that 72% of decks ran Brainstorm even if the decks were spread across several color combinations and strategies. We had UBR, BUG, RUG, UR, UWR, UW, UB, UW plus the whole non-blue slice as well as combo/Tempo/midrange in their colors. Now 28% of the meta are BUGx. That's almost 53% of ALL Brainstorm decks in the format. Just let that sink in.
www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!
Join us at Facebook!
So in your 28% BUGx decks you have included 2 Grixis decks and an Esper deck. You have lumped midrange, aggro and control into one category. Its not a meaningful number. Its just the number you get when you add up metagame percentages of a couple different decks. I dont see how its alarming that 53% of the brainstorm decks are... also running black.
The UBx control decks are quite similar in a lot of aspects. BUG and Czech Pile are sort of variants of the same deck. Grixis Control can be a variant, basically Czech Pile with more bolts, or it can be a Punishing Fire deck, or it can be a Pyromancer deck. So its kind of 3 different decks under the same banner. BUG Midrange is pretty close to BUG Control, but typically runs more creatures and is looking to play a faster game. Sometimes it's the deck that evolved out of 4c stoneblade, running jittes and more TNN's. Thats sort of its own deck that gets lumped in with everything.
Thank the gods someone finally said it.
I'm not interested in demanding that people choose different formats, but telling people who hate staples to play Modern has never been anything but a valid recommendation. Pretty much literally what the format's there for.
(Obviously there are parameters adherent to this, but the point stands.)
Isn't that the thing that makes Legacy so awesome? Not arguing with you here, but I'm curious as to whether anyone else feels that way. I like attacking along the Q axis; X, Y, and Z are for basics.
Thirding a B&R drinking game.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
Like hell I'm going to try and play enchantress in Modern. Trying to get value off do-nothing girls is even worse when they come out a turn later without protection.
Actually, I'm going to be blatantly selfish for a minute. A lot of these decks that people want to see in legacy (for mostly personal reasons, no doubt) have already been determined to be too good for modern. They had to ban Green Sun's Zenith, Dread Return and Cloudpost for Christ's sake. Punishing Fire Stoneforge Mystic and Dark Depths all got the axe. Even Seething Song, a triple-costed Dark Ritual, was considered oppressive [EDIT: bad example. To my limited understanding Storm is playable]. Legacy is the only ecosystem where these decks can exist even theoretically. Well, and Vintage I guess. But the novelty of going Sanctum > Armageddon > Balance cannot be worth the effort of playing against thorns and moxen, even with Earthcraft.
Anyway, I'm gonna get the ball rolling and say you drink whenever you see the word "ape."
Is it just me, or... (probably it is)
We are mostly discussing banning a single card, maybe 4 at a maximum, and potentially unbanning a few. Suggesting that people discussing these tiny adjustments should play another format instead, meaning removing thousands of cards, is in my view so far fetched that it's difficult to interpret as anything but an attempted provocation. Which is not worthy of a response.
A suitable response might be something like: there is a format where playing broken cards is encouraged, it is called Vintage, you go play it..
No...
Yes...
Yes, but I'd want more than a few for exploring new deck ideas and we can get SDT back...
Gonna have to quote that from now on...
if BS is "OK" for Legacy and provides "strategic diversity" then try playing decks without BS for a few months or a YEAR and then post up your ideas for the format.
Or maybe you just need a crutch and BS is the ONLY card in Legacy that can do what it does.
How's this: a 6, 9 or 12 month conditional ban on BS and an unbanning of several suspects for a similar duration?
It's not a permanent ban, just a ban long enough for the right people to gather data on how much Legacy would suffer without BS
There are currently 2993 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2993 guests)