All B/R update speculation.

[Ignithas_]

Don't understand me wrong, I don't want anything in SneakShow banned. I like Sneak Show actually, because it's one of the three easiest Combo MU I have with DnT.

But it's true that the adapting to it is very difficult when you don't play U. Discard isn't the solution because of Leyline and the fact that a good player can hide it's important cards with Brainstorm and Ponder. Plus it consumes tempo, which is important in Combo MUs. And Pithing Needle and the other cards that got mentioned have the problem that they are narrow, because SneakShow plays on many angles, from which you can only reach one. When I play Needle to shut off Griselbrand, he can swing with him for 7 damage, also gaining 7 life. And this till you draw a removal, which basicly isn't carddisadvantage for him.

Like I said above, I don't want anything banned. But I think there should be more universal hate cards against it.

[colo]

I've thought of SnT-decks as a problem in the past (Emrakul is tough to answer, but at least it's possible to answer it by using some arguably narrow sideboard choices), but I do think Griselbrand finally pushes it over the top. The problem with the card is that it's just incredibly badly (as in: overpowered for eternal formats) designed. Why couldn't he just have vigilance, and would have to tap for the draw-7? That would have been enough fatty-awesomeness for the mouthbreathers, and would have left a one-turn window to deal with the threat at hand for Legacy. A format where card advantage is king, the ability as it stands is clearly too powerful. The "solutions" to the problem (sideboarding 4 Griselbrand, etc.) suggested here cannot really be taken seriously if you think about it. Your draw-7 will do shit against a cheated-in Emrakul, so are you going to board in 4 of that one as well? Might just play SnT yourself then, right? If there's a dominating deck, it always makes more sense to play this deck right back, and not cling to some fringe built-to-deal-with-that-other-deck deck that sucks in so many of the other possible matchups you're still going to face.

I'm between confident and hopeful we'll be seeing a ban of SnT within the next two cycles of B&R updates. This stupid bullshit has been going on for too long already, and it's high time it's being put to a halt.

[Kich867]

Like I said above, I don't want anything banned. But I think there should be more universal hate cards against it.

You're correct; sneak show attacks from many angles, if you prevent them from casting show and tell they'll just sneak attack you. If you need sneak attack or griselbrand they can drop the other and take you out. This proves problematic when asking for a universal hate card against it because it's pretty much one of the only strategies that functions like this and the only ways to hate it out are either A: stop sneak/tell, B: kill their creature somehow.

The only reliable way to do A is through a counter war that they should win or something silly like meddling mage, and the only way to do B is through untargeted edict effects.

It's not trying to resolve a chain of spells, it doesn't have any difficult decisions, it doesn't take more than a turn or two to set up, and it's not particularly vulnerable to anything outside of instant speed edict effects; to which they can draw 7-14 off of anyways and run you into the ground with a perfect hand.

I mean, I guess we can pack Big Game Hunter? Until they drop Progenitus which has protection from it, so that doesn't work either. Hit/Run doesn't seem terrible either, but again, it's a really terrible card otherwise. (How do you link double cards??)

The problem with Show and Tell is that you aren't sideboarding against a strategy, you're sideboarding against a specific deck, and that feels like shit. Cages affect a lot of decks, REB's affect a lot of decks, discard affects a lot of decks, perish, counters, etc.. they're all applicable under certain situations.

Sneak and Tell warrants dedicated sideboard slots to deal with it and it alone.

Unless they print some stupid shit like; cmc 2, BR casting cost, Dumb Fattie Killer, Instant: Destroy each creature that came into play this turn that was not cast from a hand.

Or some kind of like 3-4 mana red creature that destroys all other creatures when it enters the battlefield. It's difficult to even think of a solution that isn't both A: insanely narrow or B: wildly overpowered since it has to basically be a permanent that edicts your opponent upon entering that also somehow has to have applications beyond that matchup.

[Koby]

I'm convinced over half of you don't even play legacy irl and are basing your arguments off of a few 'trice games.

Qft

I was one of two people playing with today at a 28 person tournament. I split in the finals and the other person was playing a budget reanimator. He got top eight without any fetchlands in his deck. Griselbrand mise well read: T: deal 7 to opponent draw 7 cards.

[Zakman86]

My opinion on Show and Tell:

Cards that cheat the mana cost of another card are inherently powerful. The fact that Show is a blue card in a format with Force of Will and Brainstorm makes it immensely more powerful. The fact that it's symmetrical is easily broken by the fact that many decks don't play anything strong enough to compete with the cards Show and Tell Decks are playing.

Cards are balanced based on their mana costs. It was said by R&D that the original intent for Griselbrand was for him to cost 4BBB but he was too powerful AT THAT COST. He's not exactly reasonable for 3.

Cards like Show and Tell put R&D in a bind overall because they don't build sets with Legacy necessarily in mind, although they throw Legacy players a few bones. I wouldn't be surprised to see Show and Tell get the axe in the future.

[DragoFireheart]

My opinion on Show and Tell:

Cards that cheat the mana cost of another card are inherently powerful. The fact that Show is a blue card in a format with Force of Will and Brainstorm makes it immensely more powerful. The fact that it's symmetrical is easily broken by the fact that many decks don't play anything strong enough to compete with the cards Show and Tell Decks are playing.

Cards are balanced based on their mana costs. It was said by R&D that the original intent for Griselbrand was for him to cost 4BBB but he was too powerful AT THAT COST. He's not exactly reasonable for 3.

Cards like Show and Tell put R&D in a bind overall because they don't build sets with Legacy necessarily in mind, although they throw Legacy players a few bones. I wouldn't be surprised to see Show and Tell get the axe in the future.

- Which is why I am hesitant to even buy them. I got burned before buying SotF and Vengevines. Why would I make the same mistake again by blowing $40 or so on Show and Tells when there is a real possibility for them to get the axe?

[mini1337s]

The biggest issue with removing Show and Tell/Sneak and Show is that you remove deck archetypes from the format. However, unless WotC is willing to print a balanced functional reprint (seems unlikely) or strong colorless answers, it seems likely that Griselbrand and Company will push Sneak and Show into Tier 1.

I suppose the bigger question is are low-interaction archetypes that unhealthy? Currently Dredge is a Tier 1 deck and Storm combo often puts up T8 results. Low-interaction decks seem to be an inherent part of Magic that keeps the game from devolving into aggro-midrange mirrors. Combo decks in a reasonable proportion force older decks to adapt and through innovation, new archetypes will arise. Sure, I can understand not enjoying getting KO'd by a "cheated" in fatty, but with proper preparation, you can disrupt their gameplan and turn the game around.
It seems that without "unfair" decks shaking things up every now and again, the game would grow stagnant. All that being said, if we start to see a particular combo to completely overtake a format, then sure, it's time to look at it again.
A few top 8s at SCG events doesn't mean that these decks are out of control though, and when people adapt a bit, I expect them to see an amount of representation that is reasonable. Currently, they are just exploiting a weakness in the metagame, just like most decks do at some point.

[wcm8]

I lost a sanctioned, tournament game yesterday in the following fashion on turn one:

City of Traitors -> Lotus Petal -> Show and Tell -> FoW Backup -> Emrakul

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Yeah, that's the equivalent of winning the opening-hand lottery, but it DOES happen. And it is incredibly frustrating to lose in such a way. (And of course game 2 I have to mulligan down to 5 on the play and don't have enough counters to stop the turn 2 or 3 Show and Tell.)

Anyways.

I think a point people need to remember about how the DCI goes about managing the B&R lists is maintaining "fun" in a format, not upholding the three arbitrariliy-devised pillars of aggro/combo/control or upholding a certain amount of interaction. Diversity in number of viable-decks is fun, interaction is fun, higher tournament attendance is fun, a revolving door of tier 1 dominance is fun... Losing to consistent combo decks within the first 3 turns is not fun (and often happens to negatively impact the previous three 'fun' things about Legacy). I think most people would agree, unless you're on the other side of the table.

I think an example of card being banned due to 'fun' factor is Mental Misstep -- that card WAS dominant, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it broken, and the format it spawned was actually FULL of interaction and midrange decks. (As an aside, this was also the dawn of Show and Tell decks making a strong appearance, because they could pretty much ignore Misstep unlike other combo decks of the era). However, it was arguable that Mental Misstep's ubiquity and some of the decks it fueled were incredibly un-fun and that the format was heading to a point where you either started with 4 Misstep/4 Brainstorm, or you gtfo. The card would almost certainly be broken with Snapcaster now existing, but pre-Innistrad it was just really, really good.

I don't know what to think. Some cards on the Legacy banned list shouldn't be there, and some cards that aren't really ought to be. I don't want to see the format get micro-managed to the extent of Modern, but I think we're at a point where the entire banned list should be reconsidered due to the current card pool.

tldr; unban Yawgmoth's Bargain

[colo]

What set off the SnT crap was not the printing and short period of legality of Mental Misstep, but the printing and continued legality of Emrakul. MMS still was relevant to beat SnT combo back in the day, because anyone who's the least bit competent in the game used it to counter setup spells like ponder/brainstorm, if the matchup allowed or even asked for that.

Anyway, I honestly don't see what's there to "adapt to" with SnT feat. Emrakul and Griselbrand (or anything else cheating either one or the other into play, honestly) as it stands. All these lists have counter backup and/or some other strong form of disruption (absurdly cheap, targeted discard), and end the game in incredibly short order once any of their threats resolves. The only card that stops every possible angle SnT -> Emrakul/Griselbrand can win is Humility - "there is no alternative", to quote Greece's favourite politician in all of Europe. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have a format that conists of three basic archetypes, and nothing else (RUG Tempo, UW(x) Humility Control, SnT/Reanimator combo variants).

[Kich867]

The biggest issue with removing Show and Tell/Sneak and Show is that you remove deck archetypes from the format. However, unless WotC is willing to print a balanced functional reprint (seems unlikely) or strong colorless answers, it seems likely that Griselbrand and Company will push Sneak and Show into Tier 1.

I suppose the bigger question is are low-interaction archetypes that unhealthy? Currently Dredge is a Tier 1 deck and Storm combo often puts up T8 results. Low-interaction decks seem to be an inherent part of Magic that keeps the game from devolving into aggro-midrange mirrors. Combo decks in a reasonable proportion force older decks to adapt and through innovation, new archetypes will arise. Sure, I can understand not enjoying getting KO'd by a "cheated" in fatty, but with proper preparation, you can disrupt their gameplan and turn the game around.
It seems that without "unfair" decks shaking things up every now and again, the game would grow stagnant. All that being said, if we start to see a particular combo to completely overtake a format, then sure, it's time to look at it again.
A few top 8s at SCG events doesn't mean that these decks are out of control though, and when people adapt a bit, I expect them to see an amount of representation that is reasonable. Currently, they are just exploiting a weakness in the metagame, just like most decks do at some point.

I'm not going to explicitly state that Show and Tell should be banned, but I tend to get the feeling that the excuse of non-interactive decks keeping midrange aggro in check is something that has just been perpetuated over the years to justify them.

The thing is, the game doesn't grow stagnant. Decks like Stoneblade, Maverick, Rug Tempo, Nic Fit, Hyper Aggressive archetypes (blue sligh, ur delver, naya zoo), playing against these decks involve game plans. You know what you want to be doing, you know what you don't want them to be doing, and the game overall is a series of incremental advantages. In other words, in a world where decks are actually saturated with interaction, people have fun. "Turning dudes sideways" is kind of an over used quip, almost every deck in the format that isn't a storm deck technically wins by turning a dude sideways. Even show and tell. It's really not such an issue with combo decks for me, combo decks are very all-in on their strategy, they can't run as much protection, they can't guarantee that the beginning of their combo will result in a win, they have to make absurdly difficult decisions one after another, and there are a wide variety of good cards against them that are flexible enough to be good against a span of decks. This doesn't exist for show and tell.

Sneak and show is very much a game of strictly blowouts. Either you stop them doing their thing and they usually lose unless they have more shit to do or you get steam rolled instantly. You edict or whatever, if they have the force / misdirect / spell pierce / daze you lose if they don't you might win unless they have brainstorm.

I've recently picked up Aggro Loam which has a rather abysmal matchup against the deck, I'll be dropping Hit into my sideboard. (I realize that doesn't link properly, Hit is a 1BR instant: Target player sacs a creature and take damage equal to it's casting cost. That way if they resolve their card and I resolve my card I win right? That's how magic works.)

[Kich867]

I think most people would agree, unless you're on the other side of the table.

I've been on the other side of the table and it's not that exciting. If anything, it's stressful and you remember the times you fuck up more than the times you win. It's also really disheartening to watch the person across the table just kind of zone out while you take a 13 minute turn and win.

However, I'm also amongst the kind of players who gives the opponent the win if we're about to draw and I'm getting dominated but they can't seal it out. I don't like people not having fun playing a fucking card game, and the look on other people's faces when I'd combo off and steam roll them was really disheartening. I don't expect the same kind of treatment, but I certainly won't hide the fact that I would really prefer there to be less decks that have 0 interaction to them.

I don't mind decks that win instantly so long as I'm given a legitimate means to stop them if I'm playing a deck that doesn't completely suck. Painter Grindstone, for instance, is a really good example of a combo deck I don't mind seeing since artifact hate is something you can reasonably expect; killing painter's servant is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask of someone to do before they lose. High tide combo decks need to be able to get enough land out in order to get their engine online so hyper aggressive decks and discard / counters can actually have enough time to prepare and deal with them.

[rxavage]

Qft

I was one of two people playing with today at a 28 person tournament. I split in the finals and the other person was playing a budget reanimator. He got top eight without any fetchlands in his deck. Griselbrand mise well read: T: deal 7 to opponent draw 7 cards.

Reanimator is a pain in the ass matchup sometimes. I'm glad to hear Reanimator did well though, Sherwin used my Reanimator deck for scg prov and didn't do as well as I'd hoped.

[joemauer]

NELC Legacy Invitational:
http://jupitergamesonline.com/2012/5...op-8-decklists

Who said the meta game would not turn into this?

Edit: Half of the top eight at the SCG tourney today was Delver/Show & Tells decks as well.

[rxavage]

NELC Legacy Invitational:
http://jupitergamesonline.com/2012/5...op-8-decklists

Who said the meta game would not turn into this?

An inbred meta mind you barely more than a glorified fnm.

[Tammit67]

An inbred meta mind you barely more than a glorified fnm.

Yeah, you wish

[rxavage]

Yeah, you wish

I think you misunderstand the context of inbred but I digress.

[Tammit67]

I think you misunderstand the context of inbred but I digress.

Mostly directed at glorified FNM

[menace13]

NELC Legacy Invitational:
http://jupitergamesonline.com/2012/5...op-8-decklists

Who said the meta game would not turn into this?

Edit: Half of the top eight at the SCG tourney today was Delver/Show & Tells decks as well.

16 Delvers and 10 Show Tell(12 Grisel) in decks, 20 Delvers if counting top 16.

[dontbiteitholmes]

16 Delvers and 10 Show Tell(12 Grisel) in decks, 20 Delvers if counting top 16.

Despite all that the metagame is starting to adapt to Sneak & Show. I think from here on out people are going to realize that Reanimator w/ Griselbrand is a nightmare matchup for Sneak/Show and a very solid deck on it's own. Sneak/Show can't risk running out a Show/Tell vs. Reanimator with so many nightmare scenarios (GBrand, Archon, Jin Gitaxis, ect.) not to mention a faster combo, better disruption, and more diverse fatty options (Blazing Archon G1 = GG).

The matchup is just bad times all around for Sneak/Show. I think Reanimator is going to establish itself in the next several weeks as the go-to Griselbrand deck and you are going to see Sneak&Show fall off heavily as a result. As this happens, the deck becomes easier to hate on. I didn't really think about it until it happened, but Griselbrand decks reached the next level before the decks trying to hate it out. If Reanimator succeeds in replacing Sneak/Show (and I don't see any reason it won't) we can just fall back to the same SB strats we've known all along for Reanimator (and Karakas becomes a much better answer when it doesn't have to worry about Sneaky Emrakul).

So once again I'm going to say wait and see what happens in the next couple weeks. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Reanimator hate out Show/Tell at the GP.

[lochlan]

If Reanimator succeeds in replacing Sneak/Show (and I don't see any reason it won't)

A reason:

Having more permission and a plan that doesn't involve the graveyard means Sneaky Show has a much better Canadian Thresh match-up than Reanimator, both pre-board and post-board.

Reanimator is certainly capable of beating Thresh, but it's shakier than the Sneaky Show/Thresh match-up. If Thresh continues to be a dominant deck in the format, I do not see Reanimator outright replacing Sneaky Show.

I do think that Reanimator is good right now and it will probably see more play after Reid Duke's win.