All B/R update speculation.

[sunshine]

Yeah and as a 1 of in 1 deck I don't even see it on the ban radar.

Perhaps, but I would argue the main reason that deck isn't played more is the cost and availability of Tabernacle.

[Solaran_X]

Price should NEVER be a reason to ban a card, or keep a card banned. Cards should only be banned if they warp a format to the point where it's Deck A versus Deck B designed to beat Deck A. Such as Black Summer, Combo Winter, and Mirrodin Standard.

[MMogg]

Perhaps, but I would argue the main reason that deck isn't played more is the cost and availability of Tabernacle.

I completely agree, and I think decks would probably run 2 if they weren't so expensive. That said, the deck isn't necessary. Decks that run Imperial Recruiter also are unplayable for a vast swath of the Legacy player base.

Price should NEVER be a reason to ban a card, or keep a card banned. Cards should only be banned if they warp a format to the point where it's Deck A versus Deck B designed to beat Deck A. Such as Black Summer, Combo Winter, and Mirrodin Standard.

I'm not sold on this point. If they were to unban Mana Dran, it would shoot up the cost of Drain exponentially as decks would need 4. I'm not a master deck builder, but I imagine the card isn't so broken it would completely warp the format, but I'm sure it's good enough that decks would start to use to the point where blue based control decks would all pack 4. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a format with a staple being over $100. Tarmogoyf is getting bad enough. This is all just personal feeling and not based on anything else.

If you say price should not be a reason to ban or keep a card banned, I think they at least should make sure that cards don't get too expensive. Drain and Tarmogoyf are both re-printable by their own policy. The question is only do they have the balls to reprint them? Luckily at this point the only truly ridiculous staple is Tarmogoyf (IMHO). Considering cost and ubiquitousness/need, he's the most expensive "must have" (as in, the backbone of multiple decks [1/2 of most top 8 finishes]).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Talk of banning Goyf seems logical until you step back and remember: Legacy was pretty much not that fun until Goyf came along. Sure, some people loved the fascinating Thresh vs Landstill vs Goblins meta with a few other competitve decks in the mix, but now, for whatever reason, Legacy is this huge format that is fairly healthy and exciting. And it happened right about when Goyf entered the format.

Not really. The Goblins-Thresh lockup was already starting to break when Coldsnap/Time Spiral were released, bringing in tools for other decks like Counterbalance, Empty the Warrens, Teferi, Academy Ruins. CRET Belcher was the first really stable storm deck in the format, and it annihilated Goblins. We never even got a chance to see Planar Chaos' impact due to the fuck up with Flash, and Future Sight brought in a lot of new cards besides Goyf.

It was inevitable that as other strategies got more and more new toys, the linear strength of Goblins would decline. It's dominance was only ever really an effect of Extended players who wanted to play something familiar; while a good deck, it was never good enough to justify it's numbers and rarely performed better than it's size of the field dictated.

As noted before, this is an almost nonsensical argument anyway- how can Tarmogoyf be a factor in deck diversity when nearly every deck is running Tarmogoyf? If the other 56 cards in Zoo were vastly better to the other 56 cards in Sui or Fish or whatever shell we've slapped on Goyf, they would cancel out the 2 drop both decks are running in equal numbers. Just because every deck can run Black Lotus doesn't suddenly make every deck equal.

Price should NEVER be a reason to ban a card, or keep a card banned. Cards should only be banned if they warp a format to the point where it's Deck A versus Deck B designed to beat Deck A. Such as Black Summer, Combo Winter, and Mirrodin Standard.

Why?

[sunshine]

Price should NEVER be a reason to ban a card, or keep a card banned. Cards should only be banned if they warp a format to the point where it's Deck A versus Deck B designed to beat Deck A. Such as Black Summer, Combo Winter, and Mirrodin Standard.

Regardless of whether or not it should be a reason it has been in the past. Also, you do realize that if a certain deck/card is not played solely due to it's price/availability that "format warping" in itself. Not warping in the same way that something like Flash was - I mean warping in the sense that only people who can afford the deck can play it.

The fact that Tabernacle is essentially played in a single deck makes it even less appealing to buy. Unlike a set of Goyfs which, for better or worse, you at least get to toss into almost any deck after shelling out the cash for them.

[DrJones]

As noted before, this is an almost nonsensical argument anyway- how can Tarmogoyf be a factor in deck diversity when nearly every deck is running Tarmogoyf? If the other 56 cards in Zoo were vastly better to the other 56 cards in Sui or Fish or whatever shell we've slapped on Goyf, they would cancel out the 2 drop both decks are running in equal numbers. Just because every deck can run Black Lotus doesn't suddenly make every deck equal.

Every deck started packing sorceries, instants, enchantments, artifacts and creatures.

Also, non-blue, non-antiblue decks started winning tournaments.

[eq.firemind]

Every deck started packing sorceries, instants, enchantments, artifacts and creatures.

There was a moment when people played Tarfire to make Goyf bigger. But they soon realize how awful was that.
When you make a deckbuilding decision, the logic "it feeds tarmo" affects your choice as much as "it pitches to FoW" argument , i.e. it's the last factor you should look at.

Also, non-blue, non-antiblue decks started winning tournaments.

Can't agree here too...
Some time ago Counter top was so freaking popular that it was almost blue vs antiblue format... With Merfolks being one of the best "antiblue" deck...

[jrsthethird]

I'm relatively new to the format, but from what I've seen nothing needs to be banned. Top is annoying but there are answers (Pithing Needle, Krosan Grip, Null Rod). Natural Order/Progenitus is sick but can easily be stopped, Goyf is a broken creature, but he does nothing but attack and block. I know Kird Ape was banned at one point but that was before they had a big grasp on what was really good and what wasn't. Tabernacle is too narrow, and almost every deck runs Wasteland anyway (I know there's Loam, but there's GY hate in every board so that helps).

The point is that every deck in the format has answers, so it's more like a huge game of Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock instead of deck X vs. deck anti-X. Remember that Wizards is making a conscientious push to make Legacy a viable format (I don't know if they have any talk about a Legacy Pro Tour or anything but the fact that they do 1 or 2 Legacy GPs every year means that the format is getting attention from Wizards). I think this started a couple years ago, so they might not have considered Legacy when Coldsnap was released (not sure if Top was banned in Extended when CB was released, or after), but they might not have considered protecting CounterTop with Daze and FOW. But recently, they probably test cards for Legacy in the FFL so that is likely a reason why nothing has really broken the format lately.

This could also be a reason why they printed so many good Merfolk and Goblins in Lorwyn; to make Legacy more affordable and competitive with more Standard-ish decks.

[Solaran_X]

Regardless of whether or not it should be a reason it has been in the past. Also, you do realize that if a certain deck/card is not played solely due to it's price/availability that "format warping" in itself. Not warping in the same way that something like Flash was - I mean warping in the sense that only people who can afford the deck can play it.

The fact that Tabernacle is essentially played in a single deck makes it even less appealing to buy. Unlike a set of Goyfs which, for better or worse, you at least get to toss into almost any deck after shelling out the cash for them.

First off, what cards have been banned in the past solely for cost reasons? Provide names and justifications provided by Wizards (they always do an article after a Banned/Restricted announcement saying why).

Second off, Vintage...Legacy...Extended...Standard...anyone can only play the decks they can afford. This is not a new concept unique to Legacy. With $60+ Jace, the Mind Sculptors and $30+ Abyssal Persecutors (just using Worldwake cards), not everyone is going to be playing the Standard decks that may arise and require a playset of them. Every format has decks that are strong, but underplayed because of their content of expensive cards. Vintage is a prime example. Not everyone who plays competitive Vintage even owns Power or Library or Bazaar or Workshop. Instead, they play the non-Powered decks that are designed to beat the Powered decks and level the playing field (exceptions being the proxy tournaments, obviously).

If a deck ever arises in Legacy that abuses Grim Tutor ($126.91 average on MOTL right now) and becomes a top tier competitor...should we ban Grim Tutor to make the format "fair" for the poorer players?

If a deck ever arises in Legacy that abuses Imperial Recruiter ($130.46 average on MOTL right now) and becomes a top tier competitor (this card is already used in Aluren and some Painter builds, also - but they aren't top tier)...should we ban Aluren to make the format "fair" for the poorer players?

Moat ($135.64 average) and The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale ($210.54 average) already see some play, and decks that use them both had top finishes in recent SCG$5K opens. Should they be banned to make the format "fair" for the poorer players?

And where do you draw the line on banning based on price? Price>$150/copy? Price>$100/copy? Where? And when the card becomes banned and price tanks (most likely), does the card become unbanned because it is no longer above the banning threshold?

[Oibade]

Wizards does not care about secondary market prices. Never has, never will. Its own interest is selling boosters/products and attendance at the major events.

The reasons behind the banning/restriction of a card usually are:

1. The abuse potential (see Preemptive Bannings like Mind's Desire);
2. The abuse in itself (i.e. Skullclamp);
3. The effective impact on the fun/diversity of the metagame (see Trinisphere @Vintage).

Conspiracy theories should be discouraged: Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale is not one of such cards. Even if the fact that it is not abused is directly related to its availability and price in the secondary market.

Although I believe Tarmogoyf does ruin the fun and the deckbuilding options, AND is abused, I'm not sure (Who is?) whether it will someday be banned or not. The same goes for NO/Progenitus: it reminds me of Tinker/Colossus in Vintage, where Tinker already is restricted. I just hope for next B&R session.

[Tacosnape]

This isn't really true, as when Legacy was first formed, prices were cited as banning reasons for certain cards.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Tabernacle at Pendrell vale go away, personally. Same with Imperial Recruiter.

[Solaran_X]

This isn't really true, as when Legacy was first formed, prices were cited as banning reasons for certain cards.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Tabernacle at Pendrell vale go away, personally. Same with Imperial Recruiter.

Not true.

When Type I.V became Legacy, certain cards were banned. Price/availability was a concern, but never the determining factor. The determining factor for cards such as Illusionary Mask and Mana Drain was that they were, at the time, being considered for Restriction in Type I, and thus would have become banned in Type I.V. When the lists were split, those cards were banned on the off chance that they would have been degenerate.

[ddt15]

My predicitions (or hopes):

Unbanned:

Frantic Search
-- High Tide does that still exist? Might replenish the archetype a bit. Though I doubt unbanning this would make much difference as it changes nothing to the decks weak matchups.

Goblin Recruiter
-- Food Chain what? I doubt people would even play the combo, as it means giving up Vial.

and maybe Grim Monolith.

[MattH]

Not true.

When Type I.V became Legacy, certain cards were banned. Price/availability was a concern, but never the determining factor. The determining factor for cards such as Illusionary Mask and Mana Drain was that they were, at the time, being considered for Restriction in Type I, and thus would have become banned in Type I.V. When the lists were split, those cards were banned on the off chance that they would have been degenerate.

Prices were not cited as SOLE REASONS, but they were absolutely one factor. Wizards never bans a card solely on price, but one of their concerns when debuting Legacy was that the format would shake out such that it might turn out to be like vintage, in that you had to shell out a gross sum of money to compete. They didn't want a(nother) format where the only competitive options were $1000 and up, and took that into consideration when drawing up the initial ban list. They were fine with allowing expensive single cards to exist, as long as it didn't mean that the format was expensive.

And here I agree with Wizards: it's okay to have expensive Tabernacles and such in the format, as long as you aren't required to play Tabernacles-sized cards to be competitive. There have to be budget decks which are true options - where 'true' means that the deck is better without the expensive cards, not that it's merely almost as good.

The real questions are whether they still feel the same way, and if so, how close are we to being a format that passes the "you must pay $$$ to compete" test? Merfolk and dredge and some goblin builds still come in under the price-radar, but it's becoming harder and harder to win without $800+ decks. It's a trend that legitimately worries the player base, and I wonder if Wizards is paying enough attention to be similarly worried.

[Solaran_X]

"Dominant cards that have been considered for restriction in Vintage: Here's where the list departs from what it was previously. Some cards exist at power levels that are on the brink of acceptability for even Vintage, which makes them dominant in “Type 1.5.” Worldgorger Dragon, Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, and Illusionary Mask all fit into this category. Note, too, that the power level of many of these cards, combined with their scarcity, presented a major barrier to entry to the format for many players."

http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Ar...com/daily/af30

The primary concern of those cards was their power level and dominance in Vintage, and what their impact would have been on Legacy if they were not banned. So when Type I.V became Legacy, they were banned. Price was only a side note concern, never a main reason. But somehow, everything thinks it was the reason.

[Oibade]

The real questions are whether they still feel the same way, and if so, how close are we to being a format that passes the "you must pay $$$ to compete" test? Merfolk and dredge and some goblin builds still come in under the price-radar, but it's becoming harder and harder to win without $800+ decks. It's a trend that legitimately worries the player base, and I wonder if Wizards is paying enough attention to be similarly worried.

Magic is Collectible Card Game, where Collecting implies Money. Money is conditio sine qua non.

Legacy is by itself a format requiring many staples to be played, many of which are old and relatively expensive.

For example: FoW, Duals, Fetches, Goyf, Wasteland...

Wizards does not force people to play the Game, and claiming that the formats should be less expensive sounds to me sort of paradoxical.

Of course there is and should be difference between Legacy and Vintage, as there is obvious difference between 500-800$ and 1500-2500$; but, if you don't want to spend the Money on the Game, then find a solution that suits yourself or just don't play.

[sunshine]

"Dominant cards that have been considered for restriction in Vintage: Here's where the list departs from what it was previously. Some cards exist at power levels that are on the brink of acceptability for even Vintage, which makes them dominant in “Type 1.5.” Worldgorger Dragon, Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, and Illusionary Mask all fit into this category. Note, too, that the power level of many of these cards, combined with their scarcity, presented a major barrier to entry to the format for many players."

http://wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Ar...com/daily/af30

The primary concern of those cards was their power level and dominance in Vintage, and what their impact would have been on Legacy if they were not banned. So when Type I.V became Legacy, they were banned. Price was only a side note concern, never a main reason. But somehow, everything thinks it was the reason.

Yes, they did say Power level was the primary concern. My interpretation of this paragraph though was that in reality, for some cases - I'm looking at you Illusionary Mask - It's likely that price and scarcity played a larger role.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Illusionary Mask is still on the banned list. We got back Mind Over Matter, Dream Halls, and Replenish - but we can't have a weak Stifle/Vision Charm? I find it very hard to believe that the Mask is currently illegal for play for any reason other than it's scarcity and price.

[Nightmare]

Mask is on the list because it lets you play dudes with no drawback (like, but not limited to Phyrexian Dreadnought, Lord of Tresserhorn, and Avatar of Discord. Aside from that, it's a rules clusterfuck, and we're better off without trying to explain to noobs why my face-down card is not a morph, and why I can flip it whenever I want for free.

[sunshine]

Dreadnought is likely the most common creature that would get cheated into play - at this point the card (Mask) hasn't proven it would be anything other than a less versatile Stifle or Vision Charm as I mentioned above, which hardly warrants a banning.

As far as complexity concerns go, plenty of avid players scratch their heads over situations involving Humility, which actually sees play. The card itself is actually fairly intuitive - I get to play creature without you being able to see them because I have this mask, but they turn face up as soon as something happens to them. Keeping track of mana amounts and colors could be annoying, sure - but again, not ban worthy.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Illusionary Mask is a bad Stifle. It may have free buyback, but has the disadvantage of not pitching to Force and not being a partial Sinkhole/Orim's Chant against combo/half a counter against CIP creatures.

Also, Mana Drain was banned for money reasons. Really little other justification for it's banning. And this certainly seems to have been the logic for banning Bazaar prior to Dredge having been printed as a mechanic.

It is true that they rarely say cards are banned for money reasons, but it's not true that that's never the reason. Or that it shouldn't be. Any game's worth is largely determined by accessibility. The increasingly staggering cost of Legacy is making it unaccessible.

The Dual/Force issue needs to be addressed as well. These cards all need to be reprinted or banned to deal with their mounting cost. It's just my feeling that the others can be reprinted, and that Goyf really just needs to be banned. Not least because Standard shouldn't be afflicted with that bullshit again.