All B/R update speculation.

[Whitefaces]

Ban Tarmogoyf!

[Matsu]

Ban Tarmogoyf!

^+1

[Hrothgar]

This is not a % of meta question, this is a "sense of the card" and "good games" question, but maybe this is not clear and I try to explain, but this is impossible to understand for some player frustrated by blue, who find, in Chalice, a simply brainless way to beat blue decks.
Probe and Chalice are, in their substances, two stupid card who can give, to the player who play them, an incredible advantage in asymmetrical way.

All the decks who play probe, play Therapy in 75 (monored storm no obv) and, with Pyromancer (in Grixis Delver, ee), this make a too strong interaction who can destroy the opponent hand with no use of brain, just only reading the card in the opponent hand.
The 70% of times, there ere are no difference in player's skill for this Pyromancer+Probe+Therapy loop, and this is not a good Magic.

Deck with Chalice of the Void, too many times, have an incredible advantage just playing a solland and chalice in turn 1, transforming the opponent's hand in a mulligan at 2/3 with an asymmetrical advantage for the chalice player.
This is no good because of the opponent, substantially, do not play a mtg game many times.
Again, the chalice player gets an advantage in a passively way (with no use of brain), and this is not a good Magic.

Banning this 2 cards, there are no risk of an ANT explosion, because ANT losing the Probe (+ Therapy), and this means who storm player have other trouble (ee can't sack LED in response to a Probe and other tricks).

Oh, just noticed who Gitaxian Probe is a blue card

The time running but I have the same Thought... now, with the rise of Moon / Dragon Stompy (...) this Thought is more strong the before.

I'd be fine with a probe ban.... And it's completely retarded. ....

I agree with you but do not forget Chalice of the Void that, instead, it's very skilled and difficult card to use..
Both are wrong and need ban.

[JDK]

I'm not sure banning Probe or Deathrite would kill any decks, but why would we ban them if they're nowhere near the top slots? Hell, Delver still delivers more damage than Deathrite and pitches to Force, but people don't complain.

They aren't anywhere near the top slots?
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-s...egacy/full/all

I still don't get how people compare Delver and DRS by only "flipped power > elf power, is blue".

[kinda]

Ban Tarmogoyf!

Boo.....no we need more creatures that get hosed by rip. #maketerravoregreatagain.

[CptHaddock]

Can we ban people who do even/odd rolls?

[Hanni]

Who said it was? Am I missing something?

Maybe a better analogy would have been Delver of Secrets and Monastery Swiftspear replacing Wild Nacatl and Kird Ape?

Anyway, yes, you missed something. The point went over your head.

Back when Goyf was printed, the arguments for banning it were not very different conceptually from the arguments against DRS today. It was far more efficient than everything else, and previously playable cards were no longer playable.

Fast forward to today. There has been continuous creature power creep, and the threats continue to become more efficient and more powerful for their cost. DRS is obviously more powerful than Birds of Paradise. It's simply the way power creep works.

The point is, being an efficient threat that sees play in a wide variety of decks isn't a justified reason to ban something. Tarmogoyf was just as ubiquitous back in 2010 as DRS is today.

If we ban DRS for being too efficient, do we then ban Delver next? And after Delver, do we then go after Gurmag Angler? Then Tarmogoyf? Goblin Guide?!

The point is, why does something always need to be banned? The format is healthy.

The most justified argument that I've seen so far is that Grixis Delver is the best deck in the format and constantly putting multiple copies into Top 8's... but the thing is, even if you ban DRS, Delver is still going to be the best deck in the format. I'd argue that a ban on Delver of Secrets would do more to reduce the amount of "Delver" decks (Waste/Daze tempo decks) making Top 8's, if that was the goal.

[jasper]

Can we ban people who do even/odd rolls?

Seems odd that someone would take issue with dice rolls. Even for the 'ban everything!' crowd, I think this goes too far.

[Lemnear]

The only thing DRS is guilty of in terms of damaging gamebalance, is enabling 4c goodstuff monstrosities, which are not kept in check by Wasteland, Bloodmoon & Co anymore.

The days people actually got punished for greedy manabases have ended the day 4c Deathblade became a thing. Every deck with DRS + Cantrips since then is just following the traits.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Seems odd that someone would take issue with dice rolls. Even for the 'ban everything!' crowd, I think this goes too far.

[taconaut]

@taconaut [1, 7, 8] the argument for Probe has to be more complex than if it were so good everyone would run it. A deck like maverick could use it to see an axis its opponent intends to interact on, but not actually have any cards its strategy could have employed to interact (like if you see Belcher ready to go off, you're still dead). In miracles it would be unhelpful to see Sylvan Library in their hand if you cut the maindeck CJ for Probe.

I don't think it does. If the animating principle of the ban list is that we remove cards that are format warping, because they force you to play them or play to beat them (you may disagree with this formula), then a card that is useful in some decks but not others does not meet that criteria. It is impossible to hold the position that Probe is both:

1) Lacking relevant costs/risks to play
2) Unplayable in some subset of decks

If (1) is true, and the card is truly strictly positive EV, then it must be included in every deck played by a competitive player. If (2) is true, (1) cannot be.


[2] When it comes to Delver decks there's no doubt that perfect play, made possible by the information a turn 1 Probe provides, wins a certain %age of legacy games...but on margins as narrow as Delver decks operate, having an interactive spell in place of Probe will provide more win %age when they're unable to gain additive advantage through Probe's pairing with potential 1 mana 2 for 1s (Therapy) and feeding of a delve engine. Speaking just of Delver decks, theory dictates you're more likely to make top8 if your variant can profitably use Probe - gaining perfect info without sacrificing power.

A more polarizing example of deep tournament runs could be made with infect, where one would expect that their winrate increase proportional to how many Probes they saw anytime they 'had it' and an opponent didn't.

I can't really parse the italicized text, but I agree it's probable that Probe delver decks are better than non-Probe delver decks. I think the Infect example is a Red Herring at best and counterproductive to your argument at worst - when was the last time anyone won anything with Infect?

[3] Harder to answer this...the unfair part has more to do with near-zero exposure to risk to gain advantage. Probe only really fits into proactive strategies, Again, implying it is not too powerful and universally applicable and you're playing into Chalice & burn on some level, but past that point a Probe player has committed nothing to which an opponent can interact against. It's kind of like playing Backgammon where one player always knows what their opponent's next roll will be - it's not really a healthy aspect of game design, nor is it about making the best decisions.

Things that interact with Probe:
- you mentioned Chalice of the Void and Eidolon
- Leovold
- Spirit of the Labyrinth
- Resistors
- Thalia
- Cards that give players hexproof
- Canonist/Arcane Lab Effects
- Cards that obscure your hand's true contents (brainstorm, tutors)
- Pressuring their life total (I know 2 life is about as close to no cost as you can get in Magic, but it isn't actually nothing)
- Discard
- Permission

It is about making the best decisions - if I probe you, those decisions are easier to make. If you think that ability is bannably powerful, then why not play it in your deck?


[5] Making an opponent's options worse is fine, but there should be an expectation that in doing so they have committed resources and in so doing have exposed themselves to risk. It's not what Probe does that offends, it's not even necessarily that it's mana positive (with delve), but the lack of preconditions [i.e. axes of interaction].

Addressed above.

@ahg113 from mtgtop8: Gitaxian Probe coming in at 24% making it the 5th most played non-creature spell in legacy. The main decks you need to talk about with Probe (post-DTT ban) are Grixis Delver and ANT. Aside from a Chalice deck which will generally hate on any Probe deck, the suggestions are actively game-losing. Actually tagging on the requirement to 'show me the basic Island' to pay life for Probe not only maintains healthy use of the card, but it also prevents game-ending Probe->Sea->Therapy; particularly before an opponent has even had a chance to begin playing and especially in those games where they mulled into a duplicate nonland. So no, this is nothing like Brainstorm at sorcery speed - a turn 1 Brainstorm does not equal game over for an opponent. It's really important to understand the difference between Brainstorm being a high power card, and Gitaxian Probe not requiring you to have made a choice on land played - that choice is inherently subject to a risk of being interacted with.

I thought you wanted them to lead on Sea so you could Wasteland them? Moreover, what if they just fetch island, ponder, then turn two, probe you, play a sea, therapy you? I get what you're trying to say (probe players can sometimes plan during a period where other players have to guess) but this power is available to you! Surely there must be a reason not to avail yourself of it if it's such a big deal.

A card that has been banned in Modern and is also restricted in Vintage is obviously quite powerful and it's pretty lolworthy to read people saying otherwise.

I'm not disputing that it's powerful, but I do think Vintage and Modern are meaningfully different - in Vintage, Monastery Mentor is a much bigger deal, and the format revolves around various ways to cheat mana and make aggressive, swingy plays, which are both things Probe is good at, and potentially good enough at in that context that it warrants restriction. Modern is a completely separate discussion; they will ban literally anything and everything there, so I don't think it has any bearing on other formats. At least, I hope it doesn't have bearing on other formats...Modern used to be sweet, and now it is miserable, because they banned the soul out of it. I think Probe and Deathrite Shaman are definitely pushed, but I think they're right about where Legacy wants to be.

[Crimhead]

A card that has been banned in Modern and is also restricted in Vintage is obviously quite powerful and it's pretty lolworthy to read people saying otherwise.

Is anybody actually saying that? Every card in this format is "quite powerful". That's not really the relevant consideration.

- Mentor decks are not really a problem in Legacy. Is Grixis Tempo hitting Vintage Mentor levels of representation (honest question)?

- As for Modern, isn't that the format that had formerly banned Preordain and Wild Kitty (rhetorical question)? That's not how we roll in Legacy.

- Legacy has always had better reactive decks than a Modern player has ever dreamed of. We don't really have to worry about all-in decks here. In fact, combo decks are not a problem at all these days.

Lotus Petal, LED, and Chrome Mox are also Vintage restricted and banned in Modern (or would be if they had Modern printings). But it would be laughable to cite this as being in any way relevant to their impact on Legacy.

More to the point though, people are having a sook about Grixis Delver, and Wizard have demonstrated a willingness to cave to public pressure. Reading between the lines in the 24/04/17 update, they actually name it as a card they're keeping their eye on in Legacy.

I would agree this is the most likely ban, but not that it's likely. G-Probe is no MM or SDT (and look what it took to ban the latter - years of relative dominance as well as a logistic citation).

As for the 2017 WotC quote, worth noting that at the time they printed that they had approximately zero data from the post SDT Legacy (and they haven't mentioned it since). I wouldn't put much stock in that statement myself.

Can someone make a new poll before GP Seattle?

Include Probe, DRS, Brainstorm, Fetch, TNN, S&T, Leo, Terminus... I am just curious what the outcome will be.

A new Poll every 2 month which end a week before banning announcement will be great.

Yeah man, I was just thinking this dumpster-fire could use a regular dose of petrol!

[taconaut]

I would agree this is the most likely ban, but not that it's likely. G-Probe is no MM or SDT (and look what it took to ban the latter - years of relative dominance as well as a logistic citation).

I actually think it's very likely - they've called it out by name, and it's a card that fits into exactly the kinds of decks Wizards inexplicably hates.

[Crimhead]

I actually think it's very likely - they've called it out by name, and it's a card that fits into exactly the kinds of decks Wizards inexplicably hates.

If they make a ban, presumably they would sell it to us as a Grixis Delver nerf. They might hate Infect and Storm, but those decks do not warrant a ban at all.

Would G-Probe be the right ban to hurt Grixis?

Seems to me the deck did fine running Stifle. I tend to doubt a Probe ban would have a huge impact on that deck. If they want to hurt, Grixis, it would make more sense to hit Pyromance, or succumb to public outcry and ban DRS. Those bans would actually hurt Grixis (likely kill it), but still leave other Delver archetypes intact.

Note - upon this reflection I retract my statement that Probe is the most likely ban.

[PirateKing]

If they make a ban, presumably they would sell it to us as a Grixis Delver nerf. They might hate Infect and Storm, but those decks do not warrant a ban at all.

Would G-Probe be the right ban to hurt Grixis?

Seems to me the deck did fine running Stifle. I tend to doubt a Probe ban would have a huge impact on that deck. If they want to hurt, Grixis, it would make more sense to hit Pyromance, or succumb to public outcry and ban DRS. Those bans would actually hurt Grixis (likely kill it), but still leave other Delver archetypes intact.

Note - upon this reflection I retract my statement that Probe is the most likely ban.

No no, you're on to something.

Would they ban Gitaxian Probe? Sure why not.
Would they sell it as a nerf to Grixes Delver? Indubitably.
Would it have any effect on the performance of Grixis Delver? Not within significant figures.

Wizard's have shown themselves to be at least consistent in their dumb decisions. To the point now the fact that it wouldn't make any sense is a stronger indicator that it will in fact happen.

[Fox]

@taconaut: Probe increases win percentage, but you do have to have a deck which can translate information into 'this is how I win.' You might use that knowledge to win on the spot (Infect example) or you might win over multiple turns because your decisions are no longer tied to player skill (Delver example). There's also the more complex role of Probe in ANT or alongside delve spells where it's a mix of information and also threshold/mana engine. It can't be in every deck because, without deliberate deck construction, free information can only be responsible for so many wins by itself - at some point a business spell will create more wins in a statistical sample. If a deck's strategy can't use Probe as a force multiplier then there are better cards to use (well....unless Brainstorm is banned for some reason, and then Ponder/Probe is more winning than Ponder/Preordain - this is conjecture, but it's a reasonable hypothesis).

Now Probe doesn't ruin the legacy format because even among the decks that profitably employ it, there are very different strategies (unlike vintage where UWR mentor took over). It's presence in a format doesn't push out differing strategies to an unacceptable degree (this was untrue when UR Cruise Delver was around, also untrue for DTT OmniTell). Probe does not have text that causes everyone else to react or lose (this format warping aspect is most true of the card Counterbalance). Probe lacks any preconditions which promote any but the most narrow interaction - and this is the main problem with Probe, the rules of phyrexian mana.

Probe itself is fine, and everything else about it would be fine if the caster had to provide evidence of Basic [supertype] Island [subtype] on the battlefield before alt-casting for two life. The same can be said of Surgical Extraction, a card that should not castable for two life (after that player has had a main phase in a game of magic) until the player has provided evidence of Basic Swamp on the field.

Now Probe isn't Misstep in terms of 'play it or else,' but the frustration of players with this card is reasonable - for zero risk a Probe player can downplay (as well as their deck is able) any chance for an opponent meaningfully interact....or the game is over because Probe->Sea->Therapy happened before you ever got a turn. This is a mechanics/game theory problem, not a card problem. I don't think the mechanical fix I proposed is too complex; it's literally City's Blessing for a Basic land type (plus a turn zero exception), could even just call it Phyrexia's Blessing or [insert Praetor's name] Blessing.

[jasper]

Seems odd that someone would take issue with dice rolls. Even for the 'ban everything!' crowd, I think this goes too far.

the joke





your head

[Hanni]

the joke





your head

Burn.

[taconaut]

@taconaut: Probe increases win percentage, but you do have to have a deck which can translate information into 'this is how I win.'

Are there any competitive decks that do not meet this criteria? Maybe Eldrazi or other stompy decks, but these can't play probe anyway because of chalices? I feel that every DTB requires information to play optimally, which implies this distinction does not exclude any decks, and is therefore not relevant.

You might use that knowledge to win on the spot (Infect example)

ANT or TES might be better examples, but also both run discard, which will also let you see your opponent's hand.

or you might win over multiple turns because your decisions are no longer tied to player skill (Delver example).

Why is player skill wholly predicated on "ability to guess what is in my opponent's hand?"

Other relevant skills in Magic:

- Understanding which of my opponent's cards are relevant to my game plan and theirs
- Understanding combat math and who is in the driver's seat in terms of racing
- Properly matching answers and threats (eg., I could daze this tarmogoyf or push it, but push doesn't answer non-creature cards, but daze loses power as the game goes longer, but I also play lightning bolts and may need reach later, etc etc)
- Deckbuilding skills
- Mulliganing skills
- Fetching the correct colors/managing resources appropriately (eg., can I afford to wasteland, can I afford to be cold to wasteland, which colors do I need to represent to address my opponent's threats and maximize my plays)

I honestly think the notion that Gitaxian Probe turns Magic into a perfunctory exercise devoid of meaningful decisions is just not accurate, and I think a lot of that feeling comes from the types of decks its detractors play.


There's also the more complex role of Probe in ANT or alongside delve spells where it's a mix of information and also threshold/mana engine.

These are the cool, subtle bonuses that make the card interesting.

It can't be in every deck because, without deliberate deck construction, free information can only be responsible for so many wins by itself - at some point a business spell will create more wins in a statistical sample. If a deck's strategy can't use Probe as a force multiplier then there are better cards to use

And this is why it isn't reasonable to ban it.

(well....unless Brainstorm is banned for some reason, and then Ponder/Probe is more winning than Ponder/Preordain - this is conjecture, but it's a reasonable hypothesis).

Unfortunately, we can't know that until and unless Brainstorm is banned. That's a different argument though, so I'll leave it for now.

Now Probe doesn't ruin the legacy format because even among the decks that profitably employ it, there are very different strategies (unlike vintage where UWR mentor took over). It's presence in a format doesn't push out differing strategies to an unacceptable degree (this was untrue when UR Cruise Delver was around, also untrue for DTT OmniTell). Probe does not have text that causes everyone else to react or lose (this format warping aspect is most true of the card Counterbalance).

All of these things are more or less true (I don't think Counterbalance was actually oppressive, though certainly a powerful deck that demanded answers), and I think support my argument that Probe is not bannable.

Probe lacks any preconditions which promote any but the most narrow interaction

I listed a ton of things that interact with it, and moreover, I think interacting with it isn't really all that big a deal. It literally does "Peek."

- and this is the main problem with Probe, the rules of phyrexian mana.

Phyrexian Mana is a reasonable thing to which to object, as are all freebie mechanics.

Probe itself is fine,

Agreed, glad we figured it out

and everything else about it would be fine if the caster had to provide evidence of Basic [supertype] Island [subtype] on the battlefield before alt-casting for two life. The same can be said of Surgical Extraction, a card that should not castable for two life (after that player has had a main phase in a game of magic) until the player has provided evidence of Basic Swamp on the field.

I actually find Extraction marginally more objectionable than probe, but still not to a bannable extent. I think applying the requirement to Extraction would make it close to unplayable, because the nice thing about it is that you can stop BR Reanimator (or at least make it harder for them) if you are non-blue. Sometimes they have the chancellor, sure, but every deck in Legacy has nut draws.


Now Probe isn't Misstep in terms of 'play it or else,' but the frustration of players with this card is reasonable - for zero risk a Probe player can downplay (as well as their deck is able) any chance for an opponent meaningfully interact....or the game is over because Probe->Sea->Therapy happened before you ever got a turn.

Still not super different than Thoughtseize, but people don't seem to be buying that, so it's the last time I'll mention it.

This is a mechanics/game theory problem, not a card problem.

I think the game theory does not bear out an argument for banning probe. If we assume Legacy is more or less at equilibrium and Probe is only in the decks where it makes the most sense, as opposed to in all decks, well....there it is.

As for the mechanics, some people might not like the gameplay of it. I think the gameplay of chalice is dumb as hell. Currently, sometimes people are gonna give me the cup, and sometimes people are gonna see what's in your hand. I think both of those are worth it for how good games of Legacy usually are.


I don't think the mechanical fix I proposed is too complex; it's literally City's Blessing for a Basic land type (plus a turn zero exception), could even just call it Phyrexia's Blessing or [insert Praetor's name] Blessing.

I get, and like, the spirit of the rule you're proposing, I just think it's a little clunky, and would only really matter for, what, three cards? I don't think it's worth it, or that those cards are an actual problem.

[maharis]

>fighting attrition battle
>leave opponent with empty board other than lands and 2 blanks in hand
>i have DRS and 4 spirit tokens on board
>opponent topdecks TNN
>opponent topdecks second TNN

Fuck this shit card.