All B/R update speculation.

[Ronald Deuce]

Would you please elaborate?

He means that Phyrexian Chalice of the Trinisphere of Resistance would be marginally close to viable, and yet it would still lose to Poops, All Spells. And that would be great until he decided it wasn't.

Can't we just be happy that Value.dec is keeping hideous(ly awesome) stuff in check, yet it still has predators? I'm not happy about certain cards' format penetration, but cascading bans are the thing that makes Modern terrible, and I don't want to see that happen here.

Still seems that people want Their Kind of Magic not only to be the best kind to play in Legacy, but the only one.

[Kyle]

We really need a reset of the poll up top.

[H]

We really need a reset of the poll up top.

No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.

It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.

[Mr Miagi]

I find it interesting that Standstill was also under consideration

[Erdvermampfa]

No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.

It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.

It's understandable since Tarmogoyf used to do exactly what cards like Deathrite do know, i.e. they completely invalidate certain cards and strategies that were popular and playable before which results in an even narrower space for innovative approaches. Of course Deathrite is on a whole other level of Tarmogoyf but the analogy imo holds some truth in it.

[H]

I find it interesting that Standstill was also under consideration

I know, shit, Goblin Lackey was still getting votes too. Goblin. Lackey.

B&R discussion is most probably better renamed: "What-Did-I-Lose-To-Last-Week-And-Why-Is-It-Bad-For-The-Format Discussion."

It's understandable since Tarmogoyf used to do exactly what cards like Deathrite do know, i.e. they completely invalidate certain cards and strategies that were popular and playable before which results in an even narrower space for innovative approaches. Of course Deathrite is on a whole other level of Tarmogoyf but the analogy imo holds some truth in it.

OK and so do numerous other cards and mechanics, should we ban all of those? Storm for example. If the qualification of "just really good" is the criterion for banning, what would we have left in Legacy when we are done?

The point of my likening the two situations, is that as Tarmogoyf was once considered too ubiquitous, so too will the day will come where we laugh at the idea of banning something like Deathrite.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Tarmogoyf was once considered too ubiquitous.

It was also considered to be the best blue creature. Hah!

[H]

It was also considered to be the best blue creature. Hah!

And I do too.

[Jesture]

No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.

It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.

I mean, without proper historical context, 23.96% of the voter base choosing Tarmogoyf as the most bannable card in legacy doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the Land Tax ban in 1996 was unwarranted just because Land tax is completely fine in today's meta. It's possible that the card was just oppressive at the time of the poll and has simply fallen by the wayside with the MtG power creep that has taken place since the poll was held. Similarly, I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.

Why does an old poll preclude the possibility of a new poll? It's been almost 9 years since those numbers were recorded and the game has changed in countless ways since then. If the main interest is in preserving a piece of history as some sort of lesson, then why not just lock/sticky this thread and start a new poll with more up to date choices?

[Ace/Homebrew]

I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.

I get your point, but am pretty sure you're wrong here. People wanted Top banned then because of it's interaction with Counterbalance and the amount of time it increased games. Wasn't that the reasoning for its recent ban?

The real reason the poll should not be reset is because internet polls are pointless and uninformative.

[H]

I mean, without proper historical context, 23.96% of the voter base choosing Tarmogoyf as the most bannable card in legacy doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the Land Tax ban in 1996 was unwarranted just because Land tax is completely fine in today's meta. It's possible that the card was just oppressive at the time of the poll and has simply fallen by the wayside with the MtG power creep that has taken place since the poll was held. Similarly, I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.

This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy. My point in illustrating the (seeming) parallel is that historically there is almost always a card that is highly ubiquitous card (or cards) that seem to be better than others, leading to a higher presence in the metagame. This really does not mean they are over-powered, it just means that the meta, as currently constructed, has identified a prevalent set of cards that offer a (seeming) maximal power-level. The (plausible) historical lesson of not banning Tarmogoyf is that, one, the meta will change, two, seemingly over-powered or oppressive things will be superseded, and three, that Wizard's criterion for banning things is not ubiquity (this lesson also applies to Brainstorm, et al).

Why does an old poll preclude the possibility of a new poll? It's been almost 9 years since those numbers were recorded and the game has changed in countless ways since then. If the main interest is in preserving a piece of history as some sort of lesson, then why not just lock/sticky this thread and start a new poll with more up to date choices?

I'd be down for archiving this and making a new one, not obliterating the historical record. But I agree with Ace, in reality.

[Jesture]

I get your point, but am pretty sure you're wrong here. People wanted Top banned then because of it's interaction with Counterbalance and the amount of time it increased games. Wasn't that the reasoning for its recent ban?

That's fair. I started playing Legacy in 2014 so I can't say too much about the history of the format.

The real reason the poll should not be reset is because internet polls are pointless and uninformative.

This I disagree with. I know you weren't the one who made this point, but it seems sort of baseless to assume that internet polls have no value whatsoever when some people want to leave them up as a lesson and others want a more current reflection of the opinions of The Source's members.

That said, I'll concede that polls are pretty a unreliable form of collecting data, and that its ultimately up to us as viewers to take the information presented with a grain of salt.

This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy. My point in illustrating the (seeming) parallel is that historically there is almost always a card that is highly ubiquitous card (or cards) that seem to be better than others, leading to a higher presence in the metagame. This really does not mean they are over-powered, it just means that the meta, as currently constructed, has identified a prevalent set of cards that offer a (seeming) maximal power-level. The (plausible) historical lesson of not banning Tarmogoyf is that the meta will change, is one, seemingly over-powered or oppressive things will be superseded, two, that Wizard's criterion for banning things is not ubiquity (this lesson also applies to Brainstorm, et al).

Cool, I can get behind that. I'm wary of the power creep printings associated with meta corrections (Tarmogoyf was neutered by a 1 mana 7cmc 5/5 and a subsequent printing of the most efficient 1 cmc black removal spell in history), but you're right to say that these problems do sometimes correct themselves without outside B&R interference.

[Lemnear]

This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy.

Indeed. The only one who did was the genius placing the "BAN SDT" sign on WOTCs parking lot

[Claymore]

Clearly need a BAN DRS sign now. Odds are that's the only way they'll even acknowledge Legacy.

[H]

Cool, I can get behind that. I'm wary of the power creep printings associated with meta corrections (Tarmogoyf was neutered by a 1 mana 7cmc 5/5 and a subsequent printing of the most efficient 1 cmc black removal spell in history), but you're right to say that these problems do sometimes correct themselves without outside B&R interference.

And that is (to me) literally the best possible way for it to all shake out. My personal opinion is that Brainstorm, Force of Will, Ponder, Deathrite Shaman, fetches, Dual lands, Wasteland etc., are actually the "correct" power level for Legacy, the "issue" is that there are simply not that many cards that are "as good." This really doesn't mean we should ban all of them. It means we should try (i.e. hope) to get new cards printed that can offer up competition to them.

I mean, the idea that we should just bad good cards to allow inferior cards to see play gets absurd after a while. Should we ban Underground Sea because it means that Creeping Tar Pit and Jwar Isle Refuge are not good enough? Aren't we playing Legacy to get access to these high powered cards?

So then what is the correct line to draw when banning cards to allow other cards "into the format?" Should we keep going until Savannah Lion is good again? It's like some kind of reverse Relegation, where if you get too good, you need to be removed. Note that Wizards most certainly does not share the collective impression that good equals oppressive, see the years of discussion (and inaction) on SDT/Miracles pre-ban.

Indeed. The only one who did was the genius placing the "BAN SDT" sign on WOTCs parking lot

You know what needs to be done then...

[Mr. Safety]

I think the recent unbanning of Jace/Bloodbraid in Modern might be an indication that WotC is willing to take on a little more risk as far as power level. If that is the case the trend could become unbannings rather than more bannings. I could also see them 'fixing' some cards on the ban list to get the effect, albeit less broken, back into the game.

Example:

Mental Stub your Toe, U, counter target spell with converted mana cost 1

Survival of the Dad-Bod, 1G, G discard a creature card: search your library for a creature card, reveal it and put it into your hand. You may do this only as a sorcery and only once a turn. Shuffle your library.

With the whole sentiment surrounding Masters 25, there are a lot of people that are talking about the 'good old days' of magic, whether they were in fact good or not. The community wants pushed cards, and allowing other pushed cards to fight them.

One decision does not a trend make, but it was encouraging to see them try out some unbannings with Jace/BBE.

BTW, does anyone know why SotF is a $60 card currently? I bought one for $10 about 2 years ago.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Prolly EDH... filthy casuals

[H]

BTW, does anyone know why SotF is a $60 card currently? I bought one for $10 about 2 years ago.

Sounds more like you got a great deal. I had my eye on them for a number of years, to round out my collection, starting in about 2013 or so. I never saw them that low. I felt like they were overpriced at $30 but of course I eventually caved and bought them near $40.

This graph shows the price history and suppoorts the idea that $10 was just a superior deal, not the usual price two years ago. I think the main reasons for the spikes though are unban specualtion, reserved list speculation, filthy casuals, mostly in that order...

[kinda]

If you did a top 20 of non power/ante cards using both legal and banned cards I'm curious where cards like Drs would rank. Drs is clearly worse than oath...but also clearly more format defining than mind twist would be.

[Mr. Safety]

Sounds more like you got a great deal. I had my eye on them for a number of years, to round out my collection, starting in about 2013 or so. I never saw them that low. I felt like they were overpriced at $30 but of course I eventually caved and bought them near $40.

This graph shows the price history and suppoorts the idea that $10 was just a superior deal, not the usual price two years ago. I think the main reasons for the spikes though are unban specualtion, reserved list speculation, filthy casuals, mostly in that order...

I probably got my dates mixed up. It was fairly soon after it was banned, which I checked and it was 2010. I bought it maybe 6 months later. I was building a janky Survival-based EDH deck.