[Feature Article] – The Legacy of Brainstorm

[(nameless one)]

wtf? there are people without 40 duals? Furthermore, there are people without 40 duals who play legacy?!

I play Legacy and I own zero Duals.

Hell, I refuse to play with Duals. It might sound dumb but it's a challenge I'm willing to accept.

[bruizar]

If brainstorm gets banned, i think i will quit competitive magic all together. I dont see why i would collect expensive cards such as survival, foil missteps and foil brainstorms just to see them banned (dont play the "just play with the regular version" card on me. If wizards doesnt want me to collect foils, thry shouldnt make them)

I play eternal formats because i like playing with broken cards. I dont want to play a dumbed down format where grizzly bears and ironclaw orcs define the format. Is brainstorm banworthy? Yes. Should it be banned, ever? No.

The blue-bans in vintage killed the format. If this happens to legacy, legacy will be done for as well. frankly, i dont care about arguments when it comes to banning cards in eternal formats. The way to balance the format is to unban something else first and see ifthat fixes it, not to expand the banlist.

[bruizar]

To expand on this, I don't have confidence in RND and the DCI anymore. RND continues to make stupid mistakes which are later corrected by another wrong from the DCI.

They treat magic like an MMO with their erratas and bans. They let us balance the game because they don't want to spend the resources to do this. Meanwhile, we're buying cards that get axed, and RND creates the next abomination is printed in the new set, which peaks interest from the eternal crowd. THe eternal crowd ends up buying their new 'legacy essentials' only to have it banned the next quarter. By doing this, they've implemented a way to make eternal as rotational as standard. This is their strategy to monetize on the eternal player base.


EDIT:

First you write:"This statement by Caleb is not only totally unfounded and untrue, it also shows a bias towards what “he” thinks should be fun for everybody."

Followed by
"The banned list, first and foremost should be there to make a metagame diverse. Because a Diverse Metagame is what players enjoy the most. Legacy, at this point, isn’t diverse. "

You criticize calebs assumption on fun, yet proceed to assume your own biased version. This makes your argument for diversifying the metagame an ungrounded assumption, no better than Caleb's. You then continue to attack Caleb's personal biases, but forego the fact that you started the central topic of the article from an assumptive standpoint, namely, diversified metagame=fun and to provide it, is the job of WOTC+DCI.

PS: I would love to know what you believe is a diverse metagame. I personally don't know a competitive format with as much diversity as legacy. If you do know one, please enlighten me.

[DragoFireheart]

It's impossible to have a very large and diverse meta in a competitive environment. People will tinker to discover the best decks and play them. Rogue decks will always exist, but outside of those there will always be a single arch-type that rules, the best anti-arch-type, and the best deck that beats everything but the single-arch type that rules.

[KobeBryan]

I play eternal formats because i like playing with broken cards.

geez. Why even bother..../thread

[jrw1985]

Doesn't it seem entirely logical and intuitive that, given the rising power level of Legacy, a card restricted in Vintage will eventually need to be banned in Legacy as well?

[DragoFireheart]

geez. Why even bother..../thread

His argument is valid. The entire point of the two Eternal formats is so that 99% of your card collection will always be playable and legal regardless of their viability. Removing too many fun and powerful cards defeats the entire purpose of the eternal formats. On the other hand, letting too many powerful cards be legal is also bad for Legacy. A balance must be struck.

[rufus]

Doesn't it seem entirely logical and intuitive that, given the rising power level of Legacy, a card restricted in Vintage will eventually need to be banned in Legacy as well?

No. There are spoiler cards like Trinisphere that are relatively much more powerful in Vintage than in Legacy.

[Zilla]

The banned list, first and foremost should be there to make a metagame diverse. Because a Diverse Metagame is what players enjoy the most. Legacy, at this point, isn’t diverse. It’s decks featuring Brainstorm vs decks that don’t have Brainstorm.

This statement is the biggest problem I had with the article. Legacy is the most diverse format in the history of Magic, even now. At any given tournament, you can face any one of over 50 competitive decks during any given match. Given that a lack of diversity seems to be the article's driving premise, it falls very flat.

It's a pretty preposterous notion to say "Legacy is just Brainstorm decks vs. non-Brainstorm decks!" Brainstorm isn't a strategy. It's not a threat. It's a tactical card that fits into a hugely diverse set of strategies, which is why it's so widely played.

It's not a situation like the Hulk Flash fiasco, for example, where you're either playing the most broken deck or you're playing a deck that specifically aims to beat it. You don't build a deck specifically aiming to beat Brainstorm any more than you would build a deck specifically aiming to beat Wasteland. You don't build decks to beat tactics, you build them to beat strategies.

Legacy is strategically diverse, and Brainstorm does absolutely nothing to stop that. If anything it supports it by making non-redundant decks more consistent and therefore playable. Varying forms of control, aggro, and combo are all viable in Legacy. It's ridiculously diverse.

Brainstorm might theoretically need banning, but a lack of diversity isn't at all the reason why.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The short answer of why is that blue decks are ridiculously expensive to build, so making the format three-color-blue-based-deck only is going to make the barrier to entry ridiculously high and the format, thus, unsustainable, no matter how much strategic depth remains afterwards (and while the current format is still fairly diverse, it's hardly the most diverse Legacy has seen in its history, especially considering the actual different in card lists and strategies of previous incarnations.)

[Mr. Safety]

This statement is the biggest problem I had with the article. Legacy is the most diverse format in the history of Magic, even now. At any given tournament, you can face any one of over 50 competitive decks during any given match. Given that a lack of diversity seems to be the article's driving premise, it falls very flat.

It's a pretty preposterous notion to say "Legacy is just Brainstorm decks vs. non-Brainstorm decks!" Brainstorm isn't a strategy. It's not a threat. It's a tactical card that fits into a hugely diverse set of strategies, which is why it's so widely played.

It's not a situation like the Hulk Flash fiasco, for example, where you're either playing the most broken deck or you're playing a deck that specifically aims to beat it. You don't build a deck specifically aiming to beat Brainstorm any more than you would build a deck specifically aiming to beat Wasteland. You don't build decks to beat tactics, you build them to beat strategies.

Legacy is strategically diverse, and Brainstorm does absolutely nothing to stop that. If anything it supports it by making non-redundant decks more consistent and therefore playable. Varying forms of control, aggro, and combo are all viable in Legacy. It's ridiculously diverse.

Brainstorm might theoretically need banning, but a lack of diversity isn't at all the reason why.

If Brainstorm were colorless, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If Brainstorm gets banned, I'm fairly sure that Sensei's Divining Top will be the new go-to deck manipulator. It is already played in a ton of decks, and the fact that Mental Misstep is banned means it will make a big resurgance. I'm not sure if CounterTop will come back in full force (but it did top8 at GP-Amsterdam) but SDT will drop right into Brainstorm's spot. Some decks would opt for Ponder, tempo decks and such, but other strategies will start leaning on SDT.

That's what I will do anyways. SDT is a little more limiting in the short term, but gains a metric fuck-ton of value throughout the whole game, something Brainstorm can't claim.

In all honesty, I was very surprised when I first started getting into legacy. I figured 9/10 decks would start their lists with 4x Wasteland and 3-4x SDT. Yes, I was quite naive.

[Zilla]

The short answer of why is that blue decks are ridiculously expensive to build, so making the format three-color-blue-based-deck only is going to make the barrier to entry ridiculously high and the format, thus, unsustainable, no matter how much strategic depth remains afterwards (and while the current format is still fairly diverse, it's hardly the most diverse Legacy has seen in its history, especially considering the actual different in card lists and strategies of previous incarnations.)

This is a logical disconnect. Almost every competitive deck in Legacy is 3 colors, whether or not they run Brainstorm. The cost-related barrier to entry exists whether or not Brainstorm is legal and always will, so long as dual lands are legal and don't get reprinted.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is a logical disconnect. Almost every competitive deck in Legacy is 3 colors, whether or not they run Brainstorm. The cost-related barrier to entry exists whether or not Brainstorm is legal and always will, so long as dual lands are legal and don't get reprinted.

A three color blue deck often costs double what a three color non-blue deck costs to build, which isn't cheap to start with. More if you're running Team Italia and don't need either Goyfs or Force (PS don't anyone do this it's a trap).

There are also lots of decks outside of non-linear mid-range strategies! We shouldn't just accept that Legacy is doomed to a future of blue-based Goodstuff.dec vs blue-based Goodstuff.dec. That format might be diverse in terms of decks but it's just one archetype.

[Zilla]

A three color blue deck often costs double what a three color non-blue deck costs to build, which isn't cheap to start with. More if you're running Team Italia and don't need either Goyfs or Force (PS don't anyone do this it's a trap).

I still don't buy this argument. Even if Brainstorm is banned, blue will remain the strongest color in Legacy, and will therefore necessitate blue duals.

You can argue that new players can simply opt not to play blue decks, but I'd argue the same is true now. Zoo, GW Maverick, Dredge, and Merfolk are all top contenders that don't require blue duals. Hell, even ANT only plays 2 blue duals.

The cost barrier as a reason to ban Brainstorm argument just doesn't hold water at all.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I still don't buy this argument. Even if Brainstorm is banned, blue will remain the strongest color in Legacy, and will therefore necessitate blue duals.

You can argue that new players can simply opt not to play blue decks, but I'd argue the same is true now. Zoo, GW Maverick, Dredge, and Merfolk are all top contenders that don't require blue duals. Hell, even ANT only plays 2 blue duals.

The cost barrier as a reason to ban Brainstorm argument just doesn't hold water at all.

There's a difference between blue being the strongest color and blue being a necessary color if you want to win. Traditionally, since at least 2007, blue has been the former; lately it's been the latter.

[Dzra]

The cost argument is worthless. Whether they ban Brainstorm or not, the value of dual lands will continue to rise (Blue and otherwise). No rhymes intended. ;) What WotC should do is print lands that are close to (or even better than) dual lands and actually support Legacy as one of their big three formats.

Back to Brainstorm. Blue is strong because it provides players with the greatest opportunity to outplay their opponent by giving them more choices and reducing variance. Banning Brainstorm is a strong move in dumbing down Magic. Why not go the other way and give other colors ways to reduce their variance and have more options available?

[DrJones]

Back to Brainstorm. Blue is strong because it provides players with the greatest opportunity to outplay their opponent by giving them more choices and reducing variance. Banning Brainstorm is a strong move in dumbing down Magic. Why not go the other way and give other colors ways to reduce their variance and have more options available?

I think you are wrong in this point, blue isn't strong because <blah blah blah>, blue is strong because some of its cards are severely undercosted.

In particular, WotC has acknowledged that they have undercosted blue bombs on purpose to help sell a set. Some of the most blatant examples have been "Jace, The Silver Mind", "Fact or Fiction", and now "Snapcaster Mage". The problem is that if WotC needs to print a bomb for the tournament player profile, it will be a blue card because that's what 85% of tournament players play, and not the other way around, and they print bombs by reducing the casting cost, and these changes happen at a stage that is too late to make further changes or playtest.

Then you have the problem that their duty is to balance a format in order to maximize players attending to tournaments, but if all of you constantly refuse to tone down blue even the slightest when it's the best color by a long long long shot, the only option that remains for WotC is power creep. So yeah, you either accept that there's a need to ban cards in blue, or expect WotC to keep printing stupid cards in an attempt to let other colors catch up.

[Zilla]

There's a difference between blue being the strongest color and blue being a necessary color if you want to win. Traditionally, since at least 2007, blue has been the former; lately it's been the latter.

There's no small amount of hyperbole in this statement. Decks without Brainstorm are still performing well in tournaments, which categorically disproves the assertion that blue is required to win. I accept that decks with blue and especially decks with Brainstorm are on a sharp incline, but that doesn't mean you can't play other decks and remain competitive.

You yourself have frequently lamented the tendency towards "group think" amongst the SCG crowd, and yet a lot of the hand-wringing everyone is doing right now is based on results from those tournaments. The SCG regulars have a giant boner for BUG Tempo and RUG Tempo right now, so suddenly Brainstorm needs to be banned! Give me a fucking break.

Just once I'd like to see the community wait more than a month of a given deck's "dominance" before assuming there's something horribly wrong with the format and calling for bans.

So yeah, you either accept that there's a need to ban cards in blue, or expect WotC to keep printing stupid cards in an attempt to let other colors catch up.

I accept the latter.

[Dzra]

Just once I'd like to see the community wait more than a month of a given deck's "dominance" before assuming there's something horribly wrong with the format and calling for bans.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. There are a lot of cards in Legacy, when one gets broken it'll take some time for the format to search up some new tech. Right before Survival was banned, people starting doing really well with GW Maverick using Aven Mindcensor. Banning Survival set the format back quite a long while from realizing that Mindcensor is such a strong card still.

Survival is another beast entirely, but the point is that it takes a format like Legacy a long time to adjust to things in part because there are just so few major tournaments.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There's no small amount of hyperbole in this statement. Decks without Brainstorm are still performing well in tournaments

Not in large, high-stakes tournaments. I mean if someone wants to scrounge up the big European tourneys they're welcome to it.

which categorically disproves the assertion that blue is required to win. I accept that decks with blue and especially decks with Brainstorm are on a sharp incline, but that doesn't mean you can't play other decks and remain competitive.

It may very well mean just that thing.

You yourself have frequently lamented the tendency towards "group think" amongst the SCG crowd, and yet a lot of the hand-wringing everyone is doing right now is based on results from those tournaments. The SCG regulars have a giant boner for BUG Tempo and RUG Tempo right now, so suddenly Brainstorm needs to be banned! Give me a fucking break.

No.

And this argument is specious and has been specious from the start. SCG boners can explain the tendency to play those decks! But they can't explain the tendency for those decks to outperform other decks once they actually crack top 16 and especially top 8.

Just once I'd like to see the community wait more than a month of a given deck's "dominance" before assuming there's something horribly wrong with the format and calling for bans.

It has been more than a month, far more, that many people have had the sinking feeling that they were strictly lowering their chances of winning a tournament by not starting out a list with 4 Brainstorm and 4 Force of Will, there's just been more and more building evidence over time that that feeling is in fact the reality.