All B/R update speculation.

[Crimhead]

So if Legacy really is managed for the existing player base, can we call start a petition and sent it to WotC to ban True-Name Nemesis? I think everyone has basically the same feelings about that card, namely:

1. On pure power level alone, it's not worth a ban. It's not really warping the format to the point where action objectively needs to be taken about it.
2. The card is fucking stupid and is clearly a huge mistake stemming from WotC overlooking the impact that a card designed specifically for a multiplayer format would have on a 1v1 format. It's probably the least fun card in the format, and that's saying something. I don't think people even have fun WINNING with TNN, let alone losing to it. It's just a stupid, dead behind the eyes card. I don't think I've seen a single argument that Legacy is a better format for having TNN in it.

• There are a lot of us who don't want to go down the road of a "hands-on" banned list. While we might wish TNN (or any other card) had never been printed, banning cards for being "dumb" sets a precedent not everybody would welcome.
• I suspect Stoneblade enthusiasts are/were happy to get the leg up (fin up?). If you like seeing SFM outside of D&T, TNN is a boon to the format. (OersonallyI don't give a shit about whether or not the piles are running SFM, but some people do).

I do not have strong feeling about the TNN either way. At least it's thematic. I find Leotard and other hate bears (that should have been enchantments) much "dumber".

[simdude]

Zoo was dying out before the cantrips really took over - back in Maverick Summer. Later versions of Zoo actually looked a lot like punishing Maverick.

Aggro died because WotC pushed midrange value engines to the point where just turning dudes sideways has become a bad strategy.

That said, I think Burn just needs one more (actually good) printing. eg, a 4-damage Lava Spike could possibly put Burn on the map. Even just a 5th Bolt might do the job.

Sadly(?) such a card would be far too strong for Modern, and could easily put burn at S tier.


I want to say I'm unsurprised but I genuinely thought that there was something in the air that was pointing towards some changes. I'm actually pretty ambivalent about DRS and whether or not it should be banned, I'm not exactly in love with the format but its not like DTT era where things were nearly unplayable.

I am feeling like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football though. Surely this time they'll recognize that Earthcraft is a completely safe unban (AAUGH). Equally disappointing is the lack of comments on *any* format.

[Darkness]

Boring. I’ll see you all back on 7/2/2018

[Claymore]

I wouldn't put it past Wizards to continue to let Legacy rot with further Brainstorm-DRS homogenization, or even get worse with more TNN type cards in Commander product, to push players into Modern. Like someone said previously, at least Modern players can buy Masters packs.

They're also capitalizing on the popularity of Commander with Brawl so it's easy to see that their moves are continuously going to be "how can we sell more product". Past that you have them stopping the lottery cards in favor of putting those cards into Masters sets anyway.

Edit: Plus the Buy a Box promo.

I don't think they'll let Modern decay, so if the trend of linear combo gets worse we would see bans there.

[Crimhead]

Boring. I’ll see you all back on 7/2/2018

Quite right. It's much more exciting when we can expect "no changes" right away, instead of waiting 2.5 months for nothing to change.

Sadly(?) such a card would be far too strong for Modern, and could easily put burn at S tier.

I guess WotC needs an avenue to release new cards into the eternal pool while bypassing Modern legality?

[now]

Fun police? How about fact police. Delver aggro runs Daze, other decks are highly unlikely to run Daze. Some blue based decks run fewer than 4 Ponder, some less than 4 FoW. Some run a full set of Preordain instead of Ponder. Some run all of these, and Probe. Some mono blue decks run no cantrips at all (e.g. Merfolk, Mono U Chalice/Painter). Since people generally like to not be a goldfish against Belcher if it can be avoided, most of them run 4 FoW.

But hey, of course most blue based decks will go for the consistency that only Brainstorm, Deathrite and friends can offer, and of course they are going to run the best cantrips available, in general. This is great, it is perhaps the greatest allure of Legacy. Consistency is good for the game. Consistency can be attacked, it is a fundamental, interesting problem how to effectively attack consistency without being an inconsistent pile of junk yourself. This is not boring, it is the opposite.

I’m glad that there are actually a few comments in here that are a bit nuanced and thought through. I’m also glad that this is coming from one of the few players that are actually experimenting in the format as it is. Thank you, Cartesian. It always brightens my day when I see one of your lists in the 5–0 league reports.

To think what could have been achieved with all the effort that has been and still is – now basically confirmed by Forsythe (with whom I don’t quite agree) – being invested in saying (arguing requires more than stating that something is or isn’t) that Brainstorm is too good.

Personally, I would love to have seen a list of decks that are now unplayable because of Brainstorm+Ponder/Preordain. Had we had such data we might have been able to have a constructive argument about the actual merits of Brainstorms banning.

(My personal opinion, by the way, is that there are way too many Ponders being played.)

[bakofried]

Something to bear in mind is that we have another Grand Prix with a legacy main event in less than a month. Would it really be wise to shake up a stagnant (but not -overtly- broken) format, leaving so little time to test, let alone save up for new cards if you're affected by the ban?

I'm fine with them pushing this decision back, if only because I hold out hope that they manage to resolve the issue via new printings or unbannings. I'm 50/50 on whether DRS is the right card, and would personally sooner see TNN go.

[NegatorITA]

who thought a ban would happen today was surely not thinking that (as a dude up here mentioned) there is another legacy GP incoming
What you forgot is that AFTER that GP, there will be data from both USA and EU legacy metagame for them to analyze AND THEN decide if something is worth of a ban.
Now, this said, I keep reading ban Ponder, deathrite, brainstorm:
You all really want to go play modern 2.0 with perfect mana base so much?
Why not print more cards like leo/thalia or new ones to actually tamper card selcetion while also not printing these in blue colors? (leo shouldn't have been blue tbh)

[taconaut]

When was the last time we had a legacy grand Prix have something like this?

"There were 13 players who finished the day undefeated, with eight archetypes that break down as follows:

3 Bogles
2 Humans
2 Affinity
2 Mardu Pyromancer
1 Hollow One
1 Burn
1 Jund
1 Red-Green Tron"

All very different archetypes with different engines and win conditions. It's hilarious how legacy has so many more thousand cards available and yet it's so much less diverse

And even looking at the engines we see
Cantrip engine
GSZ
8 Tombs
Loam

Meanwhile when I look at the single Modern event (which, as a GP should theoretically filter out the bad decks and pilots ) I see a clear difference in how they win as well as how they execute their plan.

I actually think you're making some fair points, Watersaw, but from my perspective, the Modern meta that Mega described could be summarized like:

3 Hexproof Dudes
2 Tribal Dudes
2 Metal Dudes
2 Midrange
1 Goblin Lore Dudes
1 Bolts and Bolt Dudes
1 Midrange
1 Ramp

Or, more succinctly:

9 Dudes
3 Midrange
1 Ramp

Like I acknowledged in another post, there are actually other diverse options in Modern (UWR control, Amulet, KCI, Scapeshift), so I'm not saying Modern is not diverse, but I think all of the "attack my opponent with a bunch of guys" decks are not really all that different, and it's unfair to split them if you're one of the people who is unwilling to differentiate between, say, Czech and Grixis in Legacy.

[Claymore]

8 Linear/non-interactive
5 Midrange

I'm counting Affinity as linear/non-interactive because it doesn't care what you do. Play dudes, play Plating, swing, put the playing on Blinkmoth, swing again. RG Tron, similar story. Ramp, ramp, ramp, Karn, Ugin, Wurmcoil.

[HSCK]

Are people on here really saying decks like Hollow One and Bogles are healthy while complaining about TNN and YP? The quality of this forum continues to go deeper into the gutter.

[ubernostrum]

who thought a ban would happen today was surely not thinking that (as a dude up here mentioned) there is another legacy GP incoming
What you forgot is that AFTER that GP, there will be data from both USA and EU legacy metagame for them to analyze AND THEN decide if something is worth of a ban.

Except, according to this site and basically every other Legacy forum, a GP is "not representative" of the Legacy metagame.

Neither is an SCG Open. Nor an MKM Series event. Nor a local event. Nor an aggregation of all of these. Nobody knows what the "representative" data is for those people, but it isn't to be found at any tournament or combination of tournaments the rest of us know about.

[Crimhead]

Except, according to this site and basically every other Legacy forum, a GP is "not representative" of the Legacy metagame.

Neither is an SCG Open. Nor an MKM Series event. Nor a local event. Nor an aggregation of all of these. Nobody knows what the "representative" data is for those people, but it isn't to be found at any tournament or combination of tournaments the rest of us know about.

WotC has conversion rate data, but will not release it.
That, plus the relatively low pool (way too few major events), leaves us with an incomplete picture and a lot of (educated) guesswork.

But you might be missing the point (if you are not just being snippy). WotC will use as much data as they have, whether it's truly representative or not, to make a decision. Making decisions on partial information is the human condition - we do it all day every day.

And the upcoming GP represents a large proportion of their potential available data. If they are even considering issuing a change, makes sense to wait.

[Crimhead]

Why not print more cards like leo/thalia or new ones to actually tamper card selcetion while also not printing these in blue colors? (leo shouldn't have been blue tbh)

I'd rather see more cards that aren't hate-bears or midrange-value with legs. Maybe some enchantment based lock pieces or combo enablers?

Sadly, I think the days of 3 damage to a player for R are over. It would be interesting to see if they ever printed a Sulfuric Vortex on legs, kinda like Eidolon was able to bump out Pyrostatic Pillar.

I could get behind a 2/1 symmetric Vise with legs for

[Noctalor]

People really wants Burn to be relevant?

In my opinion playing against burn is pretty much the worst experience you can get in MTG, literally makes it look like you need a PHD in quantum physics to play sneak and show.

[ubernostrum]

WotC has conversion rate data, but will not release it.
That, plus the relatively low pool (way too few major events), leaves us with an incomplete picture and a lot of (educated) guesswork.

But you might be missing the point (if you are not just being snippy). WotC will use as much data as they have, whether it's truly representative or not, to make a decision. Making decisions on partial information is the human condition - we do it all day every day.

And the upcoming GP represents a large proportion of their potential available data. If they are even considering issuing a change, makes sense to wait.

My point is that if you read basically any forum that deals with Legacy, you'll see arguments made that a GP can't be representative because it's full of pros who don't care about the format and who all converge on a single deck they like, and they do well because they're pros, so that tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about the deck they chose. And an SCG event isn't representative because it's the same thing but with the SCG circuit grinders. And... on and on and on, until you wonder whether there's anything these folks would accept as a representative sample of the Legacy metagame.

[Lemnear]

My point is that if you read basically any forum that deals with Legacy, you'll see arguments made that a GP can't be representative because it's full of pros who don't care about the format and who all converge on a single deck they like, and they do well because they're pros, so that tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about the deck they chose. And an SCG event isn't representative because it's the same thing but with the SCG circuit grinders. And... on and on and on, until you wonder whether there's anything these folks would accept as a representative sample of the Legacy metagame.

The problem is that online, major and local metagames are VERY different and finding a common ground to work with the data we have is always debatable and easy to dismiss for people who want to nicpick.

Countless attempts to discuss performance of decks at majors get derailed by people pointing to their local 4-rounder or a daily challenge result. A pro/grinder does not choose a deck he/she "likes", but the one with the best odds of winning against the meta afaik.

[Cave]

My point is that if you read basically any forum that deals with Legacy, you'll see arguments made that a GP can't be representative because it's full of pros who don't care about the format and who all converge on a single deck they like, and they do well because they're pros, so that tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about the deck they chose. And an SCG event isn't representative because it's the same thing but with the SCG circuit grinders. And... on and on and on, until you wonder whether there's anything these folks would accept as a representative sample of the Legacy metagame.

The magic world of internet, where you can find arguments supporting pretty much every theory.
In fact, if you think about it, people on the internet also tend to overreact with surprise (and sometimes joy) when a particular big event's top8 doesn't match the current metagame expectations. This indicates that in fact a 1000+ players Grand Prix is indeed representative of the metagame. How can't it be?
In my humble opinion, pros being skilled at the game and winning an important event with a non-tier 1 deck is an indicator that a particular deck is viable if piloted with enough skill. It doesn't indicate that skill is the only thing that matters. Deckbuilding matters, and so does luck.

[non-inflammable]

All the tangential attacks at blue are really aimed at brainstorm. All the other "characters" are just supporting actors.

I'd rather see more cards that aren't hate-bears or midrange-value with legs. Maybe some enchantment based lock pieces or combo enablers?

Any early turn play that can negate cantrips, will be met with at least one counterspell.

Why not print more cards like leo/thalia or new ones to actually tamper card selcetion while also not printing these in blue colors? (leo shouldn't have been blue tbh)

[Crimhead]

Countless attempts to discuss performance of decks at majors get derailed by people pointing to their local 4-rounder or a daily challenge result. A pro/grinder does not choose a deck he/she "likes", but the one with the best odds of winning against the meta afaik.

From what I hear, grinder pros are lucky to clear 35-40k a year, with no benefits and massive travel expenses

• Nobody is going to chose that life if it means playing a deck they don't enjoy.
• Pros also need to balance costs vs profit. eg, if a pro thinks playing Lands will give them a (slightly) higher EV than sticking with Grixis, that extra EV might not be worth the cost of any staples they don't own and can't borrow.
• Also, pros might recognise that sticking with a deck they know inside-out and that suits their strengths is better than a objectively better positioned deck.
• Being skilled at playing Legacy =/= brilliant meta insight. I understand Finkle did not design his famous deck.

The notion that pros have an infallible assessment of the meta and change decks on a dime sounds like a fairy tale to me.

My point is that if you read basically any forum that deals with Legacy, you'll see arguments made that a GP can't be representative because it's full of pros who don't care about the format and who all converge on a single deck they like, and they do well because they're pros, so that tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about the deck they chose. And an SCG event isn't representative because it's the same thing but with the SCG circuit grinders.

It's true that the relevant decks are not played in equal numbers; nor by equally skilled players. Looking at conversion rates would even out the more and less played decks, but, not the relative skill levels.

That said, it's the only data we have. The best we can do is to analyse it but take the conclusions with a heavy scoop of salt.