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 1098 of 1178 FirstFirst ... 985989981048108810941095109610971098109911001101110211081148 ... LastLast
Results 21,941 to 21,960 of 23542

Thread: All B/R update speculation.

  1. #21941

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Even if the proposed ideas are objectively better (which is hard to speculate already), I'm not sure Legacy could exist without Brainstorm and fetches at this point. You could propose an ideal format and still have a significant percentage of the player base check out for a huge net loss.

  2. #21942
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    Even if the proposed ideas are objectively better (which is hard to speculate already), I'm not sure Legacy could exist without Brainstorm and fetches at this point. You could propose an ideal format and still have a significant percentage of the player base check out for a huge net loss.
    Take whatever blue Fetchland deck you might play, get it down to 2c (change the fast Fetches to slow and add some basics), make some non-land card choices. You're now doing the exact same thing, Brainstorm and all, but you're just a little bit slower. The matchups vs Loam/Mox, Cavern/Vial, and Sol Land/Chalice are a little more hard mode, but probably not all that unmanageable (and they don't accrue legacy playables at nearly the same rate). You could do the 3-4c stuff instead and have more best cards than anyone else, but you'd have to play a subsequently more fragile mana base. It's really is as simple as forcing people who were in the Fetchland group to find a slightly different mana strategy than their peers, where they have to match upsides and downsides with the type of magic they want to play.

    Edit: as a side note, Astrolabe would need to be banned so that people could choose their favorite basic arts again.

  3. #21943

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Take whatever blue Fetchland deck you might play, get it down to 2c (change the fast Fetches to slow and add some basics), make some non-land card choices. You're now doing the exact same thing, Brainstorm and all, but you're just a little bit slower. The matchups vs Loam/Mox, Cavern/Vial, and Sol Land/Chalice are a little more hard mode, but probably not all that unmanageable (and they don't accrue legacy playables at nearly the same rate). You could do the 3-4c stuff instead and have more best cards than anyone else, but you'd have to play a subsequently more fragile mana base. It's really is as simple as forcing people who were in the Fetchland group to find a slightly different mana strategy than their peers, where they have to match upsides and downsides with the type of magic they want to play.

    Edit: as a side note, Astrolabe would need to be banned so that people could choose their favorite basic arts again.
    You ARE required to ban Blood Moon or your scenario fails, hard stop.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  4. #21944
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    You ARE required to ban Blood Moon or your scenario fails, hard stop.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
    And you have to ban Moon because a sizeable fraction of decks play 5+ basics, or they are Loam/Mox, or Cavern/Vial, or another Sol Land deck?? Maybe you missed the part about just playing 2c combinations with Fabled Passage/Evolving Wilds, which specify need for basics??

    Doesn't seem like a very good card since it only hits greed-mongers trying to get to 3+ colors; pretty sure they signed up for that possibility the moment they brewed their deck. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to account for that possibility in construction. After all, they play 3+ colors; I'm sure they'll figure it out. I've never seen a Blood Moon stop an Ash Barrens or Land Grant.

  5. #21945

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    And you have to ban Moon because a sizeable fraction of decks play 5+ basics, or they are Loam/Mox, or Cavern/Vial, or another Sol Land deck?? Maybe you missed the part about just playing 2c combinations with Fabled Passage/Evolving Wilds, which specify need for basics??

    Doesn't seem like a very good card since it only hits greed-mongers trying to get to 3+ colors; pretty sure they signed up for that possibility the moment they brewed their deck. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to account for that possibility in construction. After all, they play 3+ colors; I'm sure they'll figure it out. I've never seen a Blood Moon stop an Ash Barrens or Land Grant.
    Basics don't make mana bases better, they only really make them more or mostly immune to destruction-based tempo loss.if they are on the battlefield. DnT has 11 to 12 basics, but it still gets hosed by a B2B on nonbasic draws. Moon Stompy or whatever other name you call it will get a massive percentage of wins from a turn 1 moon effect. It makes port better in this scenario of more basics inherently in lists as you pointed out, but that requires an investment not necessary for wasteland which you didn't seem to take into account on your post.

    You are making the early game suck for almost all decks outside of prison decks or combo decks, combo I specifically never saw an acknowledgement of (doesn't mean you didn't, but didn't see it if you did) in the assessment. If you can't dig for hate early and effectively against dredge, then you lose. BR Reanimator will shrug off "no fetches" the best of the decks that do use fetches.

    In a depths list with no fetches you will still certainly be able to turn 3 combo, maybe sooner. Do you want to not have fetchlands and be staring at that? You could have turn 1 pondered, then brainstorm, fetched, and seen enough cards to gain them 20 life and live another turn or two. Instead? your thing.

    I agree they are powerful and I think they are what makes brainstorm a target by the blue-haters in the format, but I can't agree with how you are addressing it. Its lopsided and creates more issues than it solves in a '94 legal format.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  6. #21946

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Oh no, you're not banning Wasteland in that scenario. Wasteland can't touch anyone who played a responsible 2c list at the new speed of the format (has zero text against Fabled Passage/Evolving Wilds); Wasteland can only hit people who had it coming. It's important to re-inject meaningful choice back into legacy, and you should start reaping the rewards of and suffering the blowouts of those choices at the point of mana construction. Wasteland isn't just incredibly color wheel-healthy in this scenario, it also serves an important role equalizing the haves and have-nots of duals. The land you're thinking of is Rishadan Port, not Wasteland.

    Absolutely zero reason to ever ban Fetches if you're going to hit Wasteland too. There is nothing interesting about everyone having to reach for 3 color (at least) obligatory dual spam. That mana idea has to have a crippling downside people can reach for. Greatness [i.e. breaking the color wheel] needs to have a cost.
    Fabled Passage/Evolving Wilds would not be playable because of the tempo loss and the fact that fastlands/checklands are indeed lands that would see more play without fetchlands. Delver might even play Mana Confluence in that format to make up for the loss of fetchlands (yes, it would still be around).

    Combo is not something to forget as well, and slow fetchlands is not where you want to be against that.

  7. #21947
    bruizar
    Guest

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie View Post
    Fabled Passage/Evolving Wilds would not be playable because of the tempo loss and the fact that fastlands/checklands are indeed lands that would see more play without fetchlands. Delver might even play Mana Confluence in that format to make up for the loss of fetchlands (yes, it would still be around).

    Combo is not something to forget as well, and slow fetchlands is not where you want to be against that.
    Is it an idea to ban a portion of the fetchlands? For instance, all blue based fetch?
    Misty Rainforest
    Scalding Tarn
    Flooded Strand
    Polluted Delta

    You can still get a Volcanic Island, but not a Basic Island, so you are more prone to Blood Moon. And if they play prismatic vista, they can’t grab duals. It partly hurts the brainstorm decks while leaving enough power to the non brainstorm decks. This makes sense to me because so many cards are getting banned because blue absorbs them better than non-blue decks. This would suck for me since i have 16 bluebased expeditions, but objectively it looks like a good testing ground to see how blue would be nerfed without destroying it.

  8. #21948

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Constriction of the format is tied to linear access to perfectly-fixed mana. Without Fetchlands you have to adhere to the color wheel more tightly or slow down to grab those duals or play cards like Mana Confluence or find some other way to make the mana work. The key though is taking the Fetchland fraction of legacy and breaking it down into 3’ish different ways to play the game so legacy goes from 4 decks [Fetchlands vs Sol Land/Chalice vs Loam/Mox vs Cavern/Vial] to ~6 decks.

    It is a much higher bar for a new card to be the next best thing if it has to be integrated into a mana shell that can be targeted (allowing players to ignore the new card b/c they could attack the idea that would house it). When Fetchlands is one group of decks, a bad printing can hijack the whole group with ease. Once you’ve hijacked Fetchlands, ain’t nobody gonna stop you b/c Fetchlands are not a viable target.
    If that's how you feel then I have great news for you, there's this brand spanking format called Pioneer where fetches have been banned!

    For all the shit WOTC gets on this site I think they are doing a fine job right now managing their formats:

    Standard - rotating format with their new cards. Sure it sucks at times (see Oko) but it's a good gateway to the game for new players.

    Pioneer - color-wheel adherent non-rotating format comprised of more balanced sets.

    Modern - this is the one broken format that requires constant bans due to lack of answers. However, I suspect this will slowly be morphed into Legacy No Reserve List through future Modern Horizons sets. I really hope they just print Wasteland and Daze into the format at which point Delver would be a Tier 1 deck that can police the format.

    Legacy - play everything but the most broken cards. Seems like this format would get phased out due to Modern Horizons.

    Vintage - no holds bar.

    Historic - online curated format. This has tons of potential to be awesome since they get to basically hand pick the card pool.

  9. #21949

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    But, indeed, I would actually love to see this hypothetical format, or the one with rigidly formal ban structure, just so that people can, in all likelihood, eat those words. Except, if it failed, they wouldn't. I'd be perfectly fine accepting being wrong if they worked out if this fabled road to "diversity" actually lead to anything other than an old wooden ship.

    However, the usual suspects here, with the usual trite ideas, would likely still blame this failure not on the merit of their own spurious ideas, but, of course, as always, blame something else. The formal system can't fail because of the nature of it's formality, of course, it must be because the players, or the card pool, or the metagame.

    Every choice made, and not made, will make somethings "better" and other things "worse." The nostalgic, fabled "diversity" is long, long gone from Legacy, mostly because it never existed and also because the format is predicated on constriction, not expansion.
    It's hard to tell what you're claiming: (a) that an algorithmic approach to banning can never succeed in achieving a diverse format, or (b) that diversity in a fully eternal card pool is impossible regardless of what's on the banned list.

    If (a), could you explain where discretionary bans have successfully improved diversity where a formal threshold would have banned the wrong thing?
    If (b), and if you still support having a ban list at all, then you must value something other than diversity in a format. Would you be able to describe what that is? It's not that easy in the abstract, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

  10. #21950

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    It's hard to tell what you're claiming: (a) that an algorithmic approach to banning can never succeed in achieving a diverse format, or (b) that diversity in a fully eternal card pool is impossible regardless of what's on the banned list.

    If (a), could you explain where discretionary bans have successfully improved diversity where a formal threshold would have banned the wrong thing?
    If (b), and if you still support having a ban list at all, then you must value something other than diversity in a format. Would you be able to describe what that is? It's not that easy in the abstract, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
    a) Not banning brainstorm (edit: I misread 'Diversity' for 'Quality', it's hard (but possible) to argue that having brainstorm leads to more diversity so a better example of this could have been when they pre-banned ramunap ruins and ferocidon at the same time they banned rogue refiner)
    b) Gameplay quality, fun, etc

  11. #21951
    bruizar
    Guest

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    It's hard to tell what you're claiming: (a) that an algorithmic approach to banning can never succeed in achieving a diverse format, or (b) that diversity in a fully eternal card pool is impossible regardless of what's on the banned list.

    If (a), could you explain where discretionary bans have successfully improved diversity where a formal threshold would have banned the wrong thing?
    If (b), and if you still support having a ban list at all, then you must value something other than diversity in a format. Would you be able to describe what that is? It's not that easy in the abstract, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
    Procedurally generated games don't have a great track record of fun, for example the game No Man's Sky. Fun is yet to be algorithmically captured, which is hard given the subjective nature of it.

    Do we ban for balance or do we balance for fun?

  12. #21952
    GrimGrin and Glissa are in a boat...

    Join Date

    Jan 2013
    Location

    French Riviera
    Posts

    1,209

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    Procedurally generated games don't have a great track record of fun, for example the game No Man's Sky. Fun is yet to be algorithmically captured, which is hard given the subjective nature of it.

    Do we ban for balance or do we balance for fun?
    What are you talking about? Balance is already banned. Playing Balance as never been fun and no bans would be in favor of the unbanning of balance :)

  13. #21953
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    @Secretly.A.Bee I don't think Moon decks have the greatest track record against decks with mana bases similar to miracles; it just sounds kinda awful to invest 3 cards to turboMoon people in a format where it's not going to reliably affect enough of the field. In terms of prison [Sol Land/Chalice], I don't think they're doing well enough to be all that concerned, and we keep getting better lock piece removal that are increasingly maindeckable (Oko, Abrade, Borrower, Teferi, etc). Some combo decks would get better, but that doesn't really change that roughly half of your colored sources aren't entering tapped (b/c it's a mana producing land, rather than a slow fetch). If you're playing 2c, it's in your interest to play Wasteland (to attack 3+ color strategies), so you still have things to do against Depths even if your hand doesn't have untapped color source. The point is that it's a trade-off; if you want to thin your deck, unlock the power of Brainstorm, have shorter time to delve spells, etc then you just need to slow down a little and let other people play the game a bit (you're still using a system of synergies that is reliably better than what they're doing).

    The more aggressive a deck like Depths gets, the easier it becomes to punish the Rain of Salt-self strategy - as a baseline, I'm not concerned by the position of glass cannon combo decks which need to have predictable sequences. I don't think Dredge is ever going to be a serious contender for tier 1 with a Fetch ban bringing DRS back (also getting blown out when they go: Confluence -> LED -> Looting, hold priority crack LED -> FoN, you lose?). B/R's Chancellor does need to get the axe as much as it does in today's legacy (blatant first player advantage exploit = automatically qualified as ban-worthy); this deck has needed to be FoW'd out of existence for some time now b/c of what it does to antagonize non-blue decks. Griselcannon strategies should be a meme, just like Belcher, not a real deck.

    I think lots of people get fixated on "X is too good b/c it's good against my strategy Y" without realizing that their strategy isn't supposed to matter on that axis. At some point you have to sit back and let your combo-control friends (SnT, UBx, Infect, etc.) determine what constitutes an acceptable all-in combo strategy. Everything they [combo-control] do has to get the rubber stamp of approval from DnT/Hatebears. The system has had some issues recently [W&6/Plague making DnT disappear, B/R's Chancellor keeping UBx sidelined], but the main source of those truly offensive combos you're worried about has most recently been Wrenn, and before that Hymn [w/ Snapcaster], and before that CB. Other decks have legitimate roles in shaping legacy in some way, but most of what you're concerned about with combo vs slow Fetches has an existing pressure valve system that I think would be preserved.

    It's all speculation with slow Fetches viability ofc, but I don't think legacy really has to change that much [in terms of archetype viability, demand for duals, the staples remaining staples] to subdivide the previous Fetchland group into ~3 distinct starting points. It would raise the bar quite a bit on what it takes for a card to take over the meta if the mana base casting can no longer be both immune to interaction and operating at linear speeds (etb untapped).

    @Purple Blood if they banned all fast Fetches, you'd still have a number of ways to assemble a mana base, one of which includes slow Fetches. Let's break this down again:
    -there are 4 decks in legacy right now: Fetchlands vs Sol Land/Chalice vs Loam/Mox vs Cavern/Vial. (unless you're an oddball like Burn, you have to do at least one of these things to compete)
    -Fetchlands have no way to police themselves when cards like DTT, DRS, or W&6 are printed.
    -Fetchlands being legal means we're committed to a system of banning every single card that proves to be a problem (this is not avoidable, particularly with Brainstorm in the mix).
    -If there is an exploit 3-4c can break, Fetchlands will find it; and there won't be anything distinct left to do with Fetchlands that can oppose it (a function of no color identity restrictions).

    Fetchlands provide perfect fixing at linear speed (technically better than linear speed b/c of mechanics like threshold/DRS/delve), in an incredibly uninteractive fashion. To fix that problem, you have to break that chunk of the meta into distinct mana strategies which can be targeted. Legacy and vintage are about distinct, competing mana strategies [vintage = Bazaar vs Workshop vs Xerox]; every other format in magic is about derping out your opponent with [insert dumb card, like Oko] or topdecking more value cards. These other formats do not have competing mana concepts, which makes them 'fake' magic. You can still play 'real' magic without fast Fetchlands.

  14. #21954
    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 Fox View Post
    Fast Fetchlands are not improving the legacy format, so much as constantly putting it into states of disrepair.

    Legacy has always been defined the best 2-drop, given how quick that happens, let's step back a bit on the mana and let the second player actually have a chance to play a game.
    Citation needed on both. Simply restating your point with more and more words around it doesn't actually prove anything, it simply dresses it up in a greater language game.

    Do Fetches make some cards more powerful? Of course. Does it homogenize manabases? Yes. Is that constrictive? Yes. Is your plan any less constrictive? No, you've made zero case for how you plan is less constrictive, except stating that it simply just is. Differentially constrictive isn't less constrictive.

    What Legacy have you been playing where the second player has had no chance to play the game because of a fetch? Again, you already point out that Ancient Tomb and Vial likely get banned in this new format. Again, why is this objectively better than what we have? With actual examples, not the language game of buzzwords like "non-linear," "interactive" or "chance to play a game."

    Quote Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise View Post
    It's hard to tell what you're claiming: (a) that an algorithmic approach to banning can never succeed in achieving a diverse format, or (b) that diversity in a fully eternal card pool is impossible regardless of what's on the banned list.

    If (a), could you explain where discretionary bans have successfully improved diversity where a formal threshold would have banned the wrong thing?
    If (b), and if you still support having a ban list at all, then you must value something other than diversity in a format. Would you be able to describe what that is? It's not that easy in the abstract, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
    There is no such thing as "format diversity." That is an illusionary concept, born of some notion that a large cardpool should somehow yeild more playable cards when the actual fact is that large card pool are constrictive. I'm not chasing some fabled notion of diversity. No nostalgic call to the "good 'ol days" where River Boa could win a tournament. Discretionary bans only enforce a teleology, to which we can't give an analytical definition to. Are they always right? No, in fact, frequently "incorrect" because they don't actually deliver the end they suppose.

    The formal system is vastly worse though. Because there, we have no teleology at all, only output. It's just algorithmic. The algorithm could care less about what Legacy is, would be, could be, or should be. Our discretion can do that.

    I do value something over some obtuse notion of "diversity." That is, subjective play experience/perception. But they key is that my personal preference, this teleological end should not, at all, ever, be the sole criteria. Not just because I am, of course, biased, but because any single approach is fundamentally flawed by the very fact of it's singularity. The world is complicated, the future is uncertain, things are, and can be, ambiguous. There isn't The One Right Answer to any of this. All we can do is try, at best, to figure out where we are, where we want to go, how we could get there and why we would want to go at all.

    So, discretionary bans are "better" because they are not "locked in" to one approach and can consider numerous factors. Do they always get it "right?" Do they frequently get it "right?" Probably no to both. However, the alternatives are likely vastly worse.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  15. #21955
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    Citation needed on both. Simply restating your point with more and more words around it doesn't actually prove anything, it simply dresses it up in a greater language game.

    Do Fetches make some cards more powerful? Of course. Does it homogenize manabases? Yes. Is that constrictive? Yes. Is your plan any less constrictive? No, you've made zero case for how you plan is less constrictive, except stating that it simply just is. Differentially constrictive isn't less constrictive.

    What Legacy have you been playing where the second player has had no chance to play the game because of a fetch? Again, you already point out that Ancient Tomb and Vial likely get banned in this new format. Again, why is this objectively better than what we have? With actual examples, not the language game of buzzwords like "non-linear," "interactive" or "chance to play a game."
    You're putting the cart in front of the horse on Tomb and Vial [or Port] and what would need banned. The question is really whether or not there is a way to allow the Fetchland users to police themselves rather than banning every single problem card that comes along. You see this in standard all the time where zero interaction with mana leads to one best thing to be doing, so the whole format is throwing Okos or w/e at eachother until the one player dies. We saw this exact same thing in legacy with Wrenn, where everyone was able to 'play it like standard' and reduce the game to mindlessly derping eachother out in the race to Wrenn.

    So when mana concepts are largely unassailable, and most everyone is thus using the same starting point, and no one has to respect the color wheel...it becomes apparent that we're just watching a never-ending stream of cards hijack the format. If what DTT and Wrenn did to the format off the back of Fetches doesn't get that point across, I'm not sure how to provide a better example. If you take fast Fetchlands away from cards like those, they are a lot less egregious. To actually use them effectively without fast Fetches, you have to make real choices, with real consequences. Those consequences are the risk of interaction from players who are playing a fundamentally different strategy. It doesn't much matter how good your busted card is if you can't cast it, b/c someone decided to attack the foundation underpinning that card (or if your foundation self-regulated by operating at a slower speed with slow Fetches).

    If you go from fast Fetchlands to things like: slow Fetches [basics] or mirage Fetches [duals] or stacks of untapped/unfixable mana, then yes you're less constricted. When a good legacy playable comes out, you don't have to sink to the level of playing it b/c it can't take over every previous fast Fetchland archetype. That new card is not going to find a home everywhere; different mana concepts have different toolboxes. You break up Fetchlands into categories like those and you're going to see profound stylistic differences: Wasteland or no, Brainstorm or no, DRS or no; the list goes on.

    Edit: in legacy right now you don't really ask "how am I going to cast it" or "does this even work in my deck" b/c Fetchlands are overpowered and made the answer "yes, you can." When everyone is getting that same "yes, you can" answer, now you basically have to play it b/c everyone else will. You're locked into playing cards you don't want to because of mutually-assured destruction. This is the type of constriction that goes away with an exit of Fetchlands. You can sit back and watch this in action right now in legacy - just a matter of time before Hymn/Snapcaster and Counterbalance rot the Fetchland core from the inside out once more.

  16. #21956

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    Is it an idea to ban a portion of the fetchlands? For instance, all blue based fetch?
    Misty Rainforest
    Scalding Tarn
    Flooded Strand
    Polluted Delta

    You can still get a Volcanic Island, but not a Basic Island, so you are more prone to Blood Moon. And if they play prismatic vista, they can’t grab duals. It partly hurts the brainstorm decks while leaving enough power to the non brainstorm decks. This makes sense to me because so many cards are getting banned because blue absorbs them better than non-blue decks. This would suck for me since i have 16 bluebased expeditions, but objectively it looks like a good testing ground to see how blue would be nerfed without destroying it.
    I don't think that really works that well, considering that Ponder and Preordain are still really good cantrips and there are still quality replacement options, such as Mana Confluence, fastlands, or even shocklands. It probably does mean that Daze is a lot less good, but the printing of Force of Negation makes that less of a loss.

  17. #21957

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by H
    There is no such thing as "format diversity."
    Yes there is. Choose any criterion of a deck’s success defined as you please but in such a way that enough decks satisfy the criterion for the law of large numbers to begin to apply. A format is not diverse if 75 card slots are the same in 100% of decks satisfying the criterion. As you decrease the numbers 75 and 100% so that some objective function taking them both as inputs, such as their product, also decreases, the format is more diverse. Are you really saying every hypothetical eternal format with different possible ban lists all have the exact same degree of diversity?

  18. #21958
    Sushi or Meat and Eggs
    Cire's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2007
    Posts

    2,252

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour_Asses View Post
    The shadows will prevent us from seeing the broken, tortured faces and tattered attire of our fellow players! Brilliant!
    We will talk in codes and speak of forbidden things like "Extended was a Great Format". We will sign our names into the great reserved list in blood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    You sir are a ninja of fine quality.

  19. #21959
    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 Fox View Post
    You're putting the cart in front of the horse on Tomb and Vial [or Port] and what would need banned. The question is really whether or not there is a way to allow the Fetchland users to police themselves rather than banning every single problem card that comes along. You see this in standard all the time where zero interaction with mana leads to one best thing to be doing, so the whole format is throwing Okos or w/e at eachother until the one player dies. We saw this exact same thing in legacy with Wrenn, where everyone was able to 'play it like standard' and reduce the game to mindlessly derping eachother out in the race to Wrenn.

    So when mana concepts are largely unassailable, and most everyone is thus using the same starting point, and no one has to respect the color wheel...it becomes apparent that we're just watching a never-ending stream of cards hijack the format. If what DTT and Wrenn did to the format off the back of Fetches doesn't get that point across, I'm not sure how to provide a better example. If you take fast Fetchlands away from cards like those, they are a lot less egregious. To actually use them effectively without fast Fetches, you have to make real choices, with real consequences. Those consequences are the risk of interaction from players who are playing a fundamentally different strategy. It doesn't much matter how good your busted card is if you can't cast it, b/c someone decided to attack the foundation underpinning that card (or if your foundation self-regulated by operating at a slower speed with slow Fetches).

    If you go from fast Fetchlands to things like: slow Fetches [basics] or mirage Fetches [duals] or stacks of untapped/unfixable mana, then yes you're less constricted. When a good legacy playable comes out, you don't have to sink to the level of playing it b/c it can't take over every previous fast Fetchland archetype. That new card is not going to find a home everywhere; different mana concepts have different toolboxes. You break up Fetchlands into categories like those and you're going to see profound stylistic differences: Wasteland or no, Brainstorm or no, DRS or no; the list goes on.

    Edit: in legacy right now you don't really ask "how am I going to cast it" or "does this even work in my deck" b/c Fetchlands are overpowered and made the answer "yes, you can." When everyone is getting that same "yes, you can" answer, now you basically have to play it b/c everyone else will. You're locked into playing cards you don't want to because of mutually-assured destruction. This is the type of constriction that goes away with an exit of Fetchlands. You can sit back and watch this in action right now in legacy - just a matter of time before Hymn/Snapcaster and Counterbalance rot the Fetchland core from the inside out once more.
    While Wrenn was definitely a large portion of the metagame, how was the format, "playing like standard" and "derpping to Wrenn?" Please show examples of results, or a metagame analysis. Instead, all of offer is your subjective view, with a list of "reasons" that are just unqualified notions about " real choices" and "real consequences." As if, again, these differential choices make them more "real."

    You bias is painfully obvious. And just as unfounded. How do slower fetches make for a less constrictive format? Are we to presuppose this format cannot develop "optimal" strategies? You imagine that there is not a "core" that prove to be the generally most effective way to build a mana base? You notion that this format would not and cannot be solved flies in the face of every format in the history of Magic. All you do is trade a highly efficient paradigm for a lower efficiency one, not one that cannot develop efficient strategies.

    Not to mention, since your bias is so strong, why does your hypothetical format not suffer the same fate at the supposed hands of Hymn or Counterbalance. In fact, slower access to mana means there is a larger chance that UB slinging Hymns at your face is that much higher, since you have less ways to mitigate it, since the chance that you are going to only have a land entering tapped is that much higher, or only access to a basic. Then, Hymn resolving, possibly cutting you off mana is that much worse, since it has a better chance to take you off a color or colors.

    But once again, we are to presuppose that the return of DRS or DTT are net positives. Why? Why should they enjoy a privileged position relative to Fetchlands? Simply because you consider them "more interesting?" Once again, that is just subjective valuation.

    Why should Legacy be defined by suboptimal mana and not the near optimal mana we have? Because the inverse is "better" to you? I don't see it better at all and no example you have provided gives me any evidence that it actually would be. You claim that the "next best" way to build a mana base, in your fetchless paradigm, will not be constrictive. I can't imagine how this could be the case. The metagame will dictate what is, or is not viable, and that will constrict, necessarily, what is deemed "playable." And every paradigm will feature some cards that are better in it, or less so

    Not to mention, the constraints, and conceits to this new mana paradigm will lead to prevailing strategies. I can't imagine how you think this would not be the case. But, once again, your bias informs you that these conceits are fine, while our current conceits are unfair. I'm not buying, there will be an equilibrium, even a suboptimal one, that will, absolutely, necessarily constrict what cards are and are not "playable."

    Your paradigm is nothing but the thesis that suboptimal mana is more interesting than more optimal mana. Not only is this just a subjective bias, but it is also plausibly false. What you seem to imagine is that there will be some sort of "wild west" of mana bases, where anything goes and you have to make all sort of conceptual conceits and considerations. Plausibly though, no such thing exists. Given a feasible strategy and cardpool, there will be "near optimal" manners to run it and attack it.

    Again, that will constrict the format. But, you imagine this constriction is just "better" constriction because you subjectively declare it more interesting, likely because it has never been done and so is indeterminate at this moment. After, say, 2 years though, there is a strong likelihood that it is as constrictive, if not plausibly more so. Let's keep our eye on Pioneer, as an example. Should we suppose we see a vastly open format, or a gradually constrictive one? I know where I'd place my bet.

    And I'll also be more than happy to admit that I am wrong, if and when the results show as much. Also note, that it was you who implied that Vial and Tomb are likely to need banning, not me. I was simply following your supposition, so no, I am not putting the cart before the horse, I am just following from your proscribed principles.

    Imagine though, saying to someone, "sell your house and move into the woods, it's much better." And then they say, "how is that better, I am just trading some problems for other problems." You say, "no, they are better, more interesting problems, prove to me how they are not better problems." Allow me to say, no thanks, I don't want or need those problems and you've presented no discernable evidence to show me why I would or should.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  20. #21960

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    Do we ban for balance or do we balance for fun?
    The game itself is fun, so ban for balance.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 236 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 236 guests)