All B/R update speculation.

[Gheizen64]

A common assumption, but never explicitly stated! Who exactly are you quoting, btw? Not WotC, I think!

MM was statedly printed to make the format less blue, which failed. But they never say that is why it was banned! The official explanation for the ban was in "hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep". And that's a genuine quote! WotC has never defined a diverse meta game on the basis of colour:.

You're just pushing an agenda here. Anyone reading this:

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

Can see that "a more diverse metagame" is directly referring to the previous sentence. They wanted a less blue meta by giving non blue ways to stop combo and counter Brainstorm, but instead the format slowed down and blue got more dominant.

Sigh, i feel like discussing with climate deniers, it's just useless. Facts are useless, quotes are useless, precedents are useless.

[Crimhead]

Sigh, i feel like discussing with climate deniers, it's just useless. Facts are useless, quotes are useless, precedents are useless.

While at least we have something in common! Not a dig at you, just in general. Your post is very well reasoned, even if I challenge some of your assumptions.

Regarding the WotC quote, it is not at all clear that the reason for printing the card (and the admission of that failure) is equivalent to it's reason for it being banned. For one, WotC have actually qualified meta-game diversity on their banned list page. I even provided a link - facts and quotes! For two, it was pretty obvious to most Legacy players that MM obliterated archetype diversity, so there is no surprise they didn't need to say that.

That whole explanation looks to me like they are justifying the printing of the card rather than justifying the banning of the card. They hardly needed to justify the ban! You can disagree, but likening my position to climate denial is a bit much.

If your interpretation of that caption is correct, why has the format become even more blue (for a long time now) with no bans? I see three possibilities:

1. WotC were full of shit about that being the reason for the ban.
2. WotC have since changed their minds about a 70+% blue format being cause for a ban.
3. You are misinterpreting the WotC.

Take your pick - they all lead us to the same conclusion.

Edit - for the record I am a firm believer in climate change!

[Sansian]

Sigh, i feel like discussing with climate deniers, it's just useless. Facts are useless, quotes are useless, precedents are useless.

I know I'm picking at a simile and that they rarely bear close inspection, but the difference between these situations is that global warming is potentially an unavoidable extinction level event, and the prevalence of blue is more a matter of some people not liking a color and feeling bad about it.

[Barook]

While at least we have something in common! Not a dig at you, just in general. Your post is very well reasoned, even if I challenge some of your assumptions.

Regarding the WotC quote, it is not at all clear that the reason for printing the card (and the admission of that failure) is equivalent to it's reason for it being banned. for one, WotC have actually qualified meta-game diversity on their banned list page (I even provided a link - facts and quotes). For two, it was pretty obvious to most Legacy players that MM obliterated archetype diversity, so there is no surprise they didn't need to say that.

That whole explanation looks to me like they are justifying the printing of the card rather than justifying the banning of the card. They hardly needed to justify the ban! You can disagree, but likening my position to climate denial is a bit much.

If your interpretation of that caption is correct, why has the format become even more blue (for a long time now) with no bans? I see three possibilities:

1. WotC were full of shit about that being the reason for the ban.
2. WotC have since changed their minds about a 70+% blue format being cause for a ban.
3. You are misinterpreting the WotC.

Take your pick - they all lead us to the same conclusion.

Edit - for the record I am a firm believer in climate change!

You forgot one possibility:

4. Erik Lauer is a lazy PoS that doesn't manage the Legacy B&R list as he should.

Inaction doesn't necessarily mean that they're actively trying to manage the format, like some people interpret it.

We have multiple cards on the B&R list that could be unbanned without causing major trouble, yet nothing happens. It took years to get Land Tax off the list, for example.

Just look how much Erik Lauer cares

Modern got in-detail explanations for the bans.

Legacy? 2.5 lines about that basically read: Too much UR Delver - TC banned.

[Crimhead]

You forgot one possibility:

4. Erik Lauer is a lazy PoS that doesn't manage the Legacy B&R list as he should.

Inaction doesn't necessarily mean that they're actively trying to manage the format, like some people interpret it.

What inaction? We've had a ban recently, so clearly they are watching and taking action when they think they should. Just not when you think they should.

We have multiple cards on the B&R list that could be unbanned without causing major trouble, yet nothing happens.

Unbaning safe cards is not at all necessary like banning problem cards is. Quite the opposite, as should they misjudge the safety of the card it would be a train-wreck. Seems they unban a card with every new ban lately. One could speculate that they are saving the unbans to lessen the blow of any cads they may have to ban in the future.

Either way, you can't equate choosing to not unban cards which are probably not problematic with a lack of effort to ban cards which are.

Modern got in-detail explanations for the bans.

Legacy? 2.5 lines about that basically read: Too much UR Delver - TC banned.

Probably because that was a lie. R/U Delver was taking down all of ~11% of top eights at the time (two months leading up to the ban) - not even the top preforming deck, and not nearly what Jund was doing in its heyday. I'd love to know the real reason for banning TC.

[nedleeds]

• Earthcraft - potential boost to Enchantress
• Mnid Twist - potential boost to Tezzerator
• Black Vise - potential boost to Affinity

I realise the last two decks do run blue, but Affinity runs very little, and neither deck runs the cantrip package that so many players are sick of seeing. I would unban all these cards if it were up to me.

This sums up your myopic view point, you can't think about individual card power level. If a card isn't in "a deck" you can't seem to even analyze the card, its usage rate, its power level. The first thing you do when an unban is suggested is head over to the decks section and figure out what deck "it goes in". This is where the colossal gap is between sides of this argument. Some people think in terms of cards, others just stare at deck lists and wonder what goes in and out as the BNR changes and new sets are printed.

[Macky984]

All I ask is that they leave my Dig Through Time alone!

[rufus]

This sums up your myopic view point, you can't think about individual card power level. If a card isn't in "a deck" you can't seem to even analyze the card, its usage rate, its power level. The first thing you do when an unban is suggested is head over to the decks section and figure out what deck "it goes in". This is where the colossal gap is between sides of this argument. Some people think in terms of cards, others just stare at deck lists and wonder what goes in and out as the BNR changes and new sets are printed.

Really, the consideration should be in the context of the whole card pool, not just individual deck lists. When Flash was unbanned unerrataed, it didn't really fit into any of the active deck lists well.

Edit: I described the change in flash incorrectly.

[sjmcc13]

When Flash was unbanned, it didn't really fit into any of the active deck lists well.

Flash was never unbanned.
It had a power level errata removed, which caused to to work with ETB and LTB triggers, and was banned after 1 major tournament.

[Crimhead]

This sums up your myopic view point, you can't think about individual card power level. If a card isn't in "a deck" you can't seem to even analyze the card, its usage rate, its power level. The first thing you do when an unban is suggested is head over to the decks section and figure out what deck "it goes in". This is where the colossal gap is between sides of this argument. Some people think in terms of cards, others just stare at deck lists and wonder what goes in and out as the BNR changes and new sets are printed.

I never in anyway said nor implied that those cards do not have the potential to spawn new decks, so don't put words in my mouth please. Contrary to the popular adage, when you assume you really only make an ass of yourself. "Sums up my myopic view"? Real classy; I see you're a gentleman and a scholar both (not really).

All I am saying is that those cards could, at the minimum, potentially boost the decks I cited. In the grander context, I was saying that this type of card (cards with narrow applications) is what the game needs if we want to see more decks not running all those cantrip spells. Obvious some narrow spells can go in cantrip decks too. The point is that cards which are simply good will generally find a home in a three colour good-stuff deck, which means blue cantrips. If we want decks without cantrips, we need cards that support unique strategies.

Edit - Those cards actually are very poor by themselves. Twist needs ramp to be any useful, and it's not good ebough to build around. Basically it needs a non-combo deck which runs ramp anyway. Tezzerator or Mud are potentials for this. Earthcraft needs Squirrel's Nest. Enchantress is a natural shell to test this in, and a way to win quickly may be just what the deck needs (like Lands needed Marit Lage). Vise needs a deck that is aggressive enough to to appreciate the damage, but also a deck which card find some use for the card all those times it will be a dead draw.

I'm not saying new brews can't emerge - I'm just saying that these cards could encourage these unique decks and possibly add diversity to the meta.

Also, what do you mean by "usage rate" of a card which isn't played in decks? Wouldn't it have a usage rate of zero?

[Dice_Box]

Real classy; I see you're a gentleman and a scholar both (not really).

You always an ass or is this a new development?

I wonder what the difference is between large events and small stores. I remember when Clamp got banned Wizards apologised to those at card shops just enjoying themselves fairly with the card. I mean history shows it had to go. Apologies or no. But these days, you have kind of a full reverse happening. Legacy is more of a grass roots thing. I wonder if the apologies go the other way. "Big events can become streamlined and stale, we will not change things though because we think the smaller, store based metas are not withholdent to the large events."

[Crimhead]

You always an ass or is this a new development?

Pretty new - I've never felt the need to be that abrassive like this on public forums (not that I can remember), but when a user makes a groundless assumption about my thought process and insults me based on that assumption, I want to call them out. You should have seen what I almost posted!

Note that you are treating me no better that I am treating him, the only difference is I didn't prompt you by insulting you. If I'm an ass, what does that make you?

wonder what the difference is between large events and small stores. I remember when Clamp got banned Wizards apologised to those at card shops just enjoying themselves fairly with the card. I mean history shows it had to go. Apologies or no. But these days, you have kind of a full reverse happening. Legacy is more of a grass roots thing. I wonder if the apologies go the other way. "Big events can become streamlined and stale, we will not change things though because we think the smaller, store based metas are not withholdent to the large events."

Not that I doubt you, but I remember that sort of apology when they banned the artifact lands. The sypmathised with all the players who would lose their cool and creative decks which used but didn't abuse artifact lands. But the made the analogy of a casual player using Black Lotus to speed out Wooly Malmoths, and stated the competitive sceene had to determine the banned list. I don't recall specific details about the banned announcement for Skull Clamp.

Are you suggesting that WotC now don't consider tournaments scenes when making Legacy ban decisions? This seems a bit far fetched because gathering data on the hundreds of LGSs across the world would be impossible. When they banned TC do you think this was based on a notion that TC was hurting diversity at the LGS level? How would they know?

[Dice_Box]

Me? I am a royal prick but fuck, I am totally honest about it.

I am suggesting that a lot of the data that Wizards has is ignored in their banning decisions yes. I feel like they leave events to be their own little world and leave them be. Since there is no chance that Legacy will ever be a Pro Tour format again they dispose of all real responsibly and let it Coast. I mean, if a card, single card had 60% penetration in Modern who would really think it would stick around?

To people who will say though that Modern and Legacy cannot be compared, think about when Wizards tried to remove Modern from the Pro Tour. I have listened to podcasts (I think Masters of Modern) on this topic where they had someone from Wizards saying they wanted to be hands off, that's why the pulled the format.

Legacy I think is the same. They pulled the format, hands off now. So it matters not a great deal how things fly. On stores, people will play what they have. Not everyone can build anything and everything. Some people are still playing Goblins on a Friday night. Some RUG. Providing proof if that is not hard, go to a store and see what is being played.

As for TC. I think it did. No small amount of people here (A small sample size I know but hell, I can only talk about what I have seen) made the switch. Also since the deck only needed 3 Duals (I know 4 was optimal) a ton of people from outside of Legacy started to build it. Legacy had a pure "Best deck" that was cheep enough that anyone with a decent collection could trade into it and it really was causing issues.

Now I will admit, this is just musings on my end, but I do wonder if that has some play in the overall equation on what is and is not banned.

[Crimhead]

I really wish WotC has been more forthcoming with the TC ban. U/R Delver had been quite modest compared to other decks at times which didn't prompt bans. I'm sure there was more to it than that. But its hard to believe they were looking at tyhe LGS level for data!

If we better understood the TC decision, we'd be in a better position to predict the future or DTT. Personally I would benefit greatly from the ban (I think). I don't run it myself, and decks like Miracles would be a softer match for me without it. Even more significant, if tempo decks become more favourable again those are much better matches for Lands than I can anticipate in the current meta.

But if they do ban TC I hope it comes with a more detailed statement about banning motivations.

Me? I am a royal prick but fuck, I am totally honest about it.

On the other hand, you claimed you're not here to take cheap shots at me, but you can't seem to pass on an opportunity! I Will concede that you are partially honest, and it's appreciated for what it is.

[Dice_Box]

If they give us more that a paragraph on a card when they ban it I will honestly be writing them an email asking of the Ban committee is feeling ok. Don't hold your breath, you will die.

I do think they do look at other factors when they do ban things. SCG can not be the only thing they look at.

As for being partially honest. Mate, if you want more respect around here branch out. Your posting almost exclusively in the one thread the site cares about lest, pushing on arguments many would rather see die. Your going to find far more acceptance if you move to posting more often elsewhere and stop using this site just as somewhere to stand on your own personal soap box. No insult, just the way your seen here diminishes your standing to Basicly "That ban list guy".

On the bright side, you have more respect than IBA does so take that for what it's worth.

[Crimhead]

Mate, if you want more respect around here branch out.

I'm sure I will in time. It doesn't help that people flood this section with arguments so very wrong and disingenuous that I feel compelled to chime in. Just because somebody is venting, I don't think that should mean they can ignore facts and logic without being called out. I'm sure after the next B&R announcement things will calm down.

Really I'm not looking for lots of respect, just the bare-bones. What I want is quality discourse. It would be nice if folks reacting to my posts could do so based solely on their content, and not what they otherwise think of my posting practices. C'est la vie.

Edit - Thanks for this, though. I've always respected your contributions to the community even if we don't see eye-to-eye on issues of format health. :)

I have bee trying to stay away from this topic lately. But when I see hyperbole to the extent of calling Grisix Control and Omnitell strategically indistinct; and such tripe being met with acceptance rather than critique, it's hard to it on my hands. I guess I should just let it go, people see what they want to see.

[Finn]

Alrighty then. Hi fellas.

Crimhead, I am among those who would lump Grixis and Omni together. There are a few things to consider when evaluating this argument.

1. They are not strategically similar, but they are tactically almost identical. That is - the method the two decks employ to make it all come together is the same. Cantrips are the premiere method in Legacy. Other options include having several different cards that all perform a similar function, such as virtually all near-zero disruption aggro, the Life decks of old Extended, and Dredge. You could also rely upon tutor effects like Survival of the Fittest, Enlightened Tutor, Zenith, Intuition, Goblin Matron, etc. You could have your deck capable of several different lines of attack such as the Ironworks decks of Mirrodin block. The list goes on. Nobody thinks the two decks are employing the same strategy. But they both implement the same enabling tactic, the "cantrip cartel", because they are simply so much better at what they do than any other method. It is an important distinction.

2. This point of view is held by a lot of D&T pilots (and others, apparently) for good reason. Death and Taxes elbows its way into top tables by turning the cantrip engine into a liability. Since being a hammer tends to make every problem look like a nail, it makes sense that these players become attuned to the flow of blue decks from an outsider perspective that makes it clear that those deck all fit into the same pants even if they don't attend the same parties.

[ironclad8690]

$5 says a Grixis Pyromancer deck that has a transformative Omnitell sideboard or vice-versa makes top 16 of GP Lille.

[Hrothgar]

Here the gp lille trial winners.
Very various deck:

http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...015-2015-07-04

Imho this is very balanced format:

elves, pox, infect, death and taxes, merfolks, goblin, lands, storm, show and tell, delve.deck (canadian, team america), miracle, junk, grixis, MUD, reanimator, dredge, cascade.

[Dice_Box]

Everytime I see a post of "This format looks so varied" I see it framed in the form of an apologist or child trying to prove a point he knows he is losing. If the format was in fact so varied we would not be pointing out the situations where it looks that way to try and overlook the many shitty times it does if the format is so varied, why are the same decks consistently at the top tables? Why does the DTB section rarely change much? Why is it that decks running the same core set of cards do objectively better?

Honestly, how varied is this format really? One data point does not a trend make. If you want to look for trends, there is a thread stickied in the DTB section that has the information your looking for. It's not painting such a rosey, blinders on picture as this single data point you wish to pin your views on.