[Article] Eternal Europe – Get Back Into The Helvault Already

[Amon Amarth]

Not good enough. Loses to Bolas off Eureka

Not to mention Abolish.

[dameus]

@Carsten

First of all, thanks for not mentioning TinFins. Secondly, I hated the article. I don't really care if Griselbrand gets banned, but I thought a number of your arguments were just bad.

#1 This is the strongest argument. The fact is that Griselbrand is just a functionally better Bargain. You don't need anything other than this to build a case for banning him. I guess the question then becomes if Bargain should be on the banned list in the first place. If Griselbrand has been around for this long without well and truly messing everything up, I think you might as well unban Bargain. Banned cards often tend to be written off as "fuckbusted", but then when most of them are unbanned they end up doing absolutely nothing (Metalworker, Land Tax, Grim Monolith, Dream Halls..)

#2 I wish you hadn't said this, since I think it's just stupid and ignorant. This kind of “holier than thou” nonsense is typically something that lesser players have to resort to in order to not feel shitty about themselves when they lose. Yes, Griselbrand decks are generally less complicated to play than storm decks, but you're grossly exaggerating. If it was as easy as you seem to think, I can guarantee you that A LOT more people would be doing it. The truth is that the room for error is still very, very small and there are hard decisions to be made. Just like you, I'm also kinda sad that storm isn't the best combo archetype anymore. When Survival was legal I thought it was unfair that the “dumber” combo deck also happened to be the best one, but in hindsight that really shouldn't be a reason to ban it.

#3 Agree, Griselbrand has increased S&T's power level by a lot and made it harder to interact with, but clearly it is not unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination. There hasn't even been a single copy of Griselbrand in any Legacy GP top 8 to date. I think part of the reason is that the card is just underplayed and perhaps that many people punt in deck building, but the other reason is that it CAN be hated out and interacted with to a large extent. Reanimator had a huge target on its head going into GP Atlanta, but people came prepared by jamming Gilded Drakes, Humilities, Surgical Extractions and Angel of Despairs into their sideboards. Overall the hate cards against S&T could be a bit better, but in the end it's really just up to you to decide whether or not you want to be steam-rolled by Griselbrand.

Also, in your old article on Mental Misstep your take-home message is literally, “Until next time don't whine. Just figure out how to beat them." This seems hypocritical in light of this new article. I'm guessing this only applies to the cards you like playing with, or how should this be interpreted? We don't all think that countering every spell the opponent plays and then casting a Jace is some kind of intellectual pinnacle.

#4 Really? Seems like you don't have anything to back this up with. I find it kind of funny that you argued defiantly against the ban on Mental Misstep when there was widespread agreement that it made the format miserable, but now you use this “public opinion" argument (for which you have no evidence) on a card where opinions seem to be much more divided.

I think this reply is spot-on. While Griselbrand FEELS broken, the results say otherwise. Remember Drew Levin's article a while back trying to figure out why it hasn't broken the format?
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...lbrand-Go.html
Granted, that was before the discovery of Children of Korlis, but the take-away is still the same: there's plenty of answers to Griselbrand. Honestly, the best point of Carsten's article was a (backward) case for Yawgmoth's Bargain getting unbanned.

[Anthropoid]

The Last Top 16 from SCG had a total of 4 Griselbrands.

Dann this guy is format wrapping..

[DLifshitz]

The Last Top 16 from SCG had a total of 4 Griselbrands.

Dann this guy is format wrapping..

Look at the stats at http://www.mtgdecks.net/formats/view/Legacy and you'll find that the decks that play it are currently the 3rd and 4th best-performing decks in the format. They're certainly Tier 1 decks by any definition.

[Raystar]

Look at the stats http://www.mtgdecks.net/formats/view/Legacy and you'll find that the decks that play it are currently the 3rd and 4th best-performing decks in the format.

Well, if that is the indicator to use, you may want to look at Brainstorm/Force of Will being played in 4 out of 5 of those decks.

I think that the last 2 SCG tournaments results speak loudly against the banning...

[Arsenal]

Look at the stats http://www.mtgdecks.net/formats/view/Legacy and you'll find that the decks that play it are currently the 3rd and 4th best-performing decks in the format.

Look at the previous months' results though, Griselbrand isn't really there too much depsite him being legal in Legacy for some time now. And just because he is in the 3rd and 4th best performing decks this month shouldn't raise too much concern; Tarmogoyf is played in the 1st and 2nd best performing decks this month, but nobody is crying for a ban on him (those tears were shed a few years ago).

EDIT: I'm not really interested in people's subjective idea of "fun". I'm more interested in if the stats and metrics validate a banning of Griselbrand... everything I've seen says "no". Even this past SCG Open has a good mix of varied combo (Storm, Reanimator, Sneak Attack), varied control (Esperblade, Nic Fit), and midrange aggro (Jund). The format seems pretty healthy right now.

[Hof]

Thank you for writing great Legacy articles in general.

I thought the timing of this article was akward. Probably the most important european Legacy tournament in years is taken place soon, and no changes to the B/R list will happen before then. In light of that I would much have preferred to read some of your insights about the metagame right now.

[Anthropoid]

I never stated that I believe them to not be tier 1 but maybe you can help me here since when was being tier 1 banworthy? If every deck was forced to play Griselbrand or otherwise disappear then we could talk about a Ban.

It seems like your stats are supporting to people who favor Legacy with Griselbrand and he is in no Way oppressive.
Sure you are way favored to win the game but isnt it the same with Ad Nauseum or Omniscience? Those decks are called unfair for a reason.

I just dont get where the hysteria concering Griselbrand comes from.

[DLifshitz]

I think that the last 2 SCG tournaments results speak loudly against the banning...

If you believe you can take the results of a single tournament, or even two tournaments, and claim something meaningful can be inferred about the metagame, well then allow me to retort:

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10416
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=10417

I simply picked the two "new" tournaments on tcdecks. This aside, I think we can agree that, as of today, Griselbrand is now not the engine of a fringe combo deck, but a format-defining card - just like Goyf, Brainstorm and FoW.

Likewise, I don't believe the stats for a single month are grounds for banning. Or that the results for March suggest that something should be banned. People need time to adapt (or try to adapt) to the metagame, so we should simply return to this discussion in a month or two. But if we're talking about today, the fact remains, the decks abusing Griselbrand are both popular and successful.

[Arsenal]

I agree that Griselbrand is a format defining card much like Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Tarmogoyf, Force of Will, Wasteland are; being a "staple" of the format for obvious reasons isn't grounds for banning. I still haven't seen stats that support the "OMG BAN NAO!!" argument. All I hear is subjective chatter about "fun" and "I can't win when this hits play".

[phonics]

I am actually looking forward to seeing some completely broken strategy developed around grizz. Every once in a while a super oppressive deck should come around to remind people what is actually means.

[Megadeus]

I am actually looking forward to seeing some completely broken strategy developed around grizz. Every once in a while a super oppressive deck should come around to remind people what is actually means.

Tin Fins isnt enough? What other strategy could possibly be built to abuse Griselbrand more than a deck hellbent on reanimating it on T1 and then playing a one drop creature thats sole purpose in life is to gain back the life griselbrand lost?

[damionblackgear]

Tin Fins isnt enough? What other strategy could possibly be built to abuse Griselbrand more than a deck hellbent on reanimating it on T1 and then playing a one drop creature thats sole purpose in life is to gain back the life griselbrand lost?

Just to answer the second question (I'm aware it was rhetorical).

A deck that's hellbent on putting Grislebrand into play on turn 1 and only being vulnerable in 1 zone instead of 2.

[wcm8]

I agree that Griselbrand is a format defining card much like Brainstorm, Swords to Plowshares, Tarmogoyf, Force of Will, Wasteland are; being a "staple" of the format for obvious reasons isn't grounds for banning. I still haven't seen stats that support the "OMG BAN NAO!!" argument. All I hear is subjective chatter about "fun" and "I can't win when this hits play".

This is a bad comparison, because all of the aforementioned cards don't win the game when they resolve. In fact, the majoirty of them are based around interaction, something which is extremely limited, if indeed present at all, when playing against decks that revolve around Griselbrand. What makes a format fun, I think, is the amount of fun and interesting interaction there is. That's why I personally don't enjoy Vintage much, nor do I like the Timmy-esque EDH-ish slug-fests that Standard often devolves into. It's also why I hate getting paired against decks like Belcher or Burn, even when I'm playing a deck that's heaviliy favored -- I go to tournaments to have a fun time, not shuffle cards and see what happens.

I contend that the problem isn't really Griselbrand, so much as it's Show and Tell. Without this stupid 'herp derp i win' card, the only way you'd be seeing Griselbrand is in decks requiring the graveyard. Which is easily hated out via the gamut of options available to EVERY deck. Whereas with SnT, you're essentially forced to either a) run a ton of black and/or blue as a control suite, b) run incredibly narrow answers that aren't even guaranteed to be relevant (e.g. Gilded Drake does nothing against the Omni part of Omni tell) [(or c) run a faster combo yourself, but then we're just splitting hairs)]. This enforces more narrow competitive design constraints on the format, which I personally think is unhealthy.

People didn't complain about having to run 3-4 Tormod's Crypt/Relic of Progenitus when Dredge was the unfair DTB, precisely because these slots were useful against plenty of other matchups. Requiring a non-blue/non-black deck to pack something like 4 Karakas/Angel of Despair just to have a shot of winning a tournament is, *I* think, a sign of format warpage. I think we've hit the critical mass of stupidly designed 'I win' permanents that it's time for SnT to be under banning consideration. It's essentially a Blue sorcery that reads 'Add one of the following to your mana pool: 15 colorless, or 7UUU, or 4BBBB'.

It's not unreasonable to expect a card that costs 4BBBB to win the game in 99% of the scenarios it resolves. That's the realm of EDH. And really, the majority of Reanimation targets win the game as well -- Iona and Jin-Gitaxias aren't that much easier to beat. But this requires an easily disruptable setup. That's why I don't think the problem is actually Griselbrand.

[jrw1985]

I don't understand why folks want Griselbanned. It's not like Survival and absolutely dominating top 8s. We aren't taking it for granted that Grizz is the best card in the format. We're not debating over which of the Grizz builds are the best. It isn't a problem and shouldn't be banned until it is a problem.

[Kich867]

I don't understand why folks want Griselbanned. It's not like Survival and absolutely dominating top 8s. We aren't taking it for granted that Grizz is the best card in the format. We're not debating over which of the Grizz builds are the best. It isn't a problem and shouldn't be banned until it is a problem.

There's been cards in the past that fall into the same category that were banned.

[Arsenal]

What makes a format fun, I think, is the amount of fun and interesting interaction there is. That's why I personally don't enjoy Vintage much, nor do I like the Timmy-esque EDH-ish slug-fests that Standard often devolves into. It's also why I hate getting paired against decks like Belcher or Burn, even when I'm playing a deck that's heaviliy favored -- I go to tournaments to have a fun time, not shuffle cards and see what happens.

Again, I do not care about your subjective definition of "fun", which is what you're talking about. I care about statistics and data, none of which I've seen says that Griselbrand should be banned. I've seen dozens of "Ban Griselbrand" articles, none of which make a compelling argument, from an objective standpoint, to ban Griselbrand. Virtually everything I've read is Griselbrand decks = unfun, so it should be banned.

EDIT: Also, just because WotC has banned cards before due to the "unfun" factor, doesn't mean that it's some 100% hard rule that they always adhere to (Land Tax unbanning?). So that argument is a rather poor one to use for the "Ban Griselbrand" camp as WotC has shown itself to be wildly inconsistent in it's banning rationale.

[joemauer]

Virtually everything I've read is Griselbrand decks = unfun, so it should be banned.

Necropotence style draw engines = unfun, except for the player abusing it.

[Arsenal]

That's a slippery slope, as you could then make an argument that ALL combo is unfun for the non-combo player, so ALL combo should be banned into oblivion. Of course, a line has to be drawn in the sand (so to speak), and ALL the tourney results data that I've seen since Griselbrand's printing shows that it's not banworthy.

EDIT: To be clear, I run Reanimator occassionally, and I'd still run it even if Griselbrand were to be banned, but it's amazing to read so many "Ban Griselbrand" articles/comments and come away with so little actual rationale other than "it's unfun for me to play against Griselbrand. WotC, please ban it. kthxbai."

[dontbiteitholmes]

ITT: "Griselbrand/SNT should be banned because I hate losing to it even though the results don't support a banning."