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

[Koby]

http://www.starcitygames.com/article...t-Already.html

#griselbanned

I agree with the article in entirety. I also submit as proof:

Legacy Open Quarterfinals - Dredge vs Tin Fins - Turn 2 kill in Legacy.
Grand Prix San Diego (Modern) - Round 12 - Turn 2 kill in Modern.

[HammafistRoob]

I would be very surprised if he gets banned anytime soon. Just because he wins the game once played in some manner doesn't facilitate a banning. What do Ad Nauseum and Time Spiral do? Win the game for 6 mana. But they require little to no setup(a lot of limitations on constructing options though).

Playing Griz limits your deck constructing options to an extent. It also means running cards that are dead without having a demon readily available.

Also I hear Stifle and Needle effects are pretty good hosers for him. I also think Ad Nauseum is as much of if not more of an auto-win as Grizzly. Granted Ad Nauseum heavily limits your deck constructing options, but it's something to think about.

[damionblackgear]

Decent read. I only agree with #4 as a reason to ban a card (except in Belcher's case. New players need something too) - I would also consider over-saturation as a possible reason. The rest just seem like complaints about a card being good or taking the interactivity from the deck. We don't complain about Belcher/Burn being simple, or non-interactive. We're not complaining about how the Dimir mechanic is a (non)functional reprint of Hermit Druid's ability. We only complain about cards/decks that are, or could potentially be, doing well.

I'm fine with it in the format and I don't play with it. I do think it says something when someone who does say that they think it should be gone. I just don't think that in this case it's overpowering. I just think people need to realize and adapt.

I remember these same arguments for Survival and Mystical. Neither of which were all powerful threats. People just didn't adapt to them and instead opted to try and be them. The people who did try to adapt took a long time to try or had little help due to lowering numbers of support. Goblins took at least 6 months to adapt black when Iona's was the main target in Reanimator. How many decks adapted enchantment removal or even something as simple as Spell Snare for Survival? When people finally did adapt, less than 3 months later, both were gone (honestly, I would like them back).

In counter to your videos, I have 2 of my own videos vs the almighty 7/7 (poorly played, don't judge me I already know).

T3~ish vs Knight - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwq547hFJns
Turn 2 Vs DRS (Very blurry, and shaky)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlOQjUCLMfk

Sidenote - I'm zero-for-infinite on my Banned/restricted updates/requests so people may want to think about selling.

[dontbiteitholmes]

We're not complaining about how the Dimir mechanic is a (non)functional reprint of Hermit Druid's ability.

Because it's not maybe?

[oarsman]

I agree completely that it should be banned.

I don't care at all if there are decks that can win on turn 1 or 2.
But it should be hard. You should have to know what you are doing.
The Griselbrand decks are so easy to play that anyone could pick them up and expect to do very well the first time out.



Damionblackgear, what exactly are you saying? I believe Hermit Druid is the most powerful creature ever printed. It is hardly comparable to the new Dimir ability. Also, Survival did not disappear because people started playing Spell Snare and enchantment removal. It was banned. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it read that way to me.

[damionblackgear]

Because it's not maybe?

Really? I mean I guess they don't put the land into your hand and it can be a non-basic but... I'm done with sarcasm. That's Hermit Druid.

Damionblackgear, what exactly are you saying? I believe Hermit Druid is the most powerful creature ever printed. It is hardly comparable to the new Dimir ability. Also, Surivival did not disappear because people started playing Spell Snare and enchantment removal. It was banned. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it read that way to me.

I was getting at the fact that people didn't adapt to them and when they finally started adapting about 3 months later the cards were banned. It was a shot at people not wanting to evolve to a threat. I was not trying to say that spell snare or enchantment removal got survival banned.

Here's a deck idea from the Gatecrash spoilers. There's two "Hermit Druids" in the set, how can we abuse them?

[Malchar]

Wow a turn 2 kill in legacy. Never seen that before.

It's just like storm except that it loses to pithing needle or any counterspell.

On argument #1: It's clear that griselbrand is approximately equal to bargain, and bargain is banned. However, the article fails to make the case that bargain deserves to be banned. This point could just as well be used as an argument for unbanning bargain.

Argument #2 seems completely subjective. Do people want to ban burn decks because they're too easy to play? Or why not advocate banning belcher?

Argument #3: Cheat-a-Fatty decks are supposed to win the game immediately once they cheat a fatty. Storm decks win once ad nauseam resolves. Belcher decks win once belcher resolves (with enough to active it). Besides, griselbrand isn't even the worst offender here. Emrakul is even less interactive. In fact, since griselbrand lets you draw cards, it actually encourages future interaction. Emrakul can't even be targetted by spells, and he wipes the opponent's lands on attacking. There's plenty of ways to interact with griselbrand like pithing needle, any graveyard hate, any counterspell. I think that people are just too lazy to change their ways and they want to take the easy way out by just banning him.

Argument #4 is another one which is clearly subjective. The argument is based only on how "fun" griselbrand is, and if you use that criterion, Belcher and a host of other decks should be banned as well. I mean, I'm sure that they will probably ban it in modern, and then all the legacy players who can't deal with it can just move into that format.

[oarsman]

damionblackgear:
"Really? I mean I guess they don't put the land into your hand and it can be a non-basic but... I'm done with sarcasm. That's Hermit Druid."




Sorry I don't know how to do the quote thing properly.

It's good that you are done with sarcasm I guess. Is that a random comment about your evolving sense of humor, or does it refer to the statement above? Because I don't read that as sarcasm, I just see someone who is making comparisons among cards that they don't understand. I actually thought you were trolling at first. Hermit Druid having to hit a basic is not a small point that can be dismissed. Imagine if Oops All Spells (or whatever it is being called) was actually able to play half a dozen lands along with Land Grant. That would be terrifying, and that is the difference.

[.Ix]

We're not complaining about how the Dimir mechanic is a (non)functional reprint of Hermit Druid's ability.

Huh? The Dimir mechanic is Cipher.

[Fl0do]

We're not complaining about how the Dimir mechanic is a (non)functional reprint of Hermit Druid's ability.

It's not like Hermit Druid, because with Balustrade Spy and Undercity Informer you have to build a deck without lands to get something really working.

For me the scary thing about Griselbrand is the fact, that it lets you draw into the solution for the opposing Griselbrand-Solution or the next wincon immediately and at instant speed. So you simply overpower your opponent's ressources for fighting your strategy.

[lochlan]

I completely disagree with the article, and honestly Carsten (whom I consider to be the de facto best Legacy writer) lost a little credibility with me.

This sentence in particular felt awful to read:

What it all boils down to is that bannings should happen when a ban makes the game more fun for most players involved.

Besides that I cannot endorse "the most fun for the most people" (isn't that what Standard and other mouth-breather formats like EDH are for? /elitism) I think this ignores a much more important factor: format diversity.

Bannings should happen and do happen when a particular deck is so powerful that other strategies cannot compete with it. This is the only justifiable reason for banning a card in my eyes. Every single Griselbrand deck has a virtually-unwinnable match-up among decks that exist in the current format.

As far as this goes:

Griselbrand-based combo decks could be played by a trained monkey in most situations

What about Jund? That deck is even easier to play than Griselbrand decks. Losing to a deck that's easy to pilot is annoying, but that's just part of the game. It's also silly to suggest that skill does not matter, even an easy-to-play deck will fare better in the hands of an experienced and skilled player.

I kind of agree that Griselbrand is a "dumb" card, but part of what makes Legacy so fun is just doing dumb, broken stuff. If you don't want to lose to Griselbrand then play a deck that doesn't lose to him. Honestly the article just kind of makes it sound like Griselbrand is unbeatable, but that's very far from the truth.

[Fl0do]

I kind of agree that Griselbrand is a "dumb" card, but part of what makes Vintage so fun is just doing dumb, broken stuff.

Corrected that for you.

[lochlan]

Whether you believe it or not, that's also a feature of Legacy.

[Raystar]

It goes without saying that the power level of Griselbrand is very very high. I could reason along the lines of discussing where to put the threshold between what level of power is admitted and what level is not. Under this premise we could agree (or not) the the power level carried by the card deserves correction.

What I think is wrong to frame is the "fun factor" connected to a card/strategy: this is a personal (hence biased) evaluation and should not be the foundation for a banning. I personally find decks like Jund tedious and linear, that is why I stay very clear of Modern...it is just not fun for me.

I don't know if Griselbrand deserves to leave the format (legacy) or not, what I know is that the reason for a decision of this kind should be based on facts (results/dominance/available answers) and not on opinions (I like it/don't like it).

If we talk about facts, my belief is that it is too early to make a judgement: Legacy has not yet been hit with overwhelming force by the Grieselbrand tide and it seems to me that there are at least two dominant archetypes (Miracles and Esper Stoneblade) that are keeping "broken" strategies in check.

In some months, if things will have changed and the meta will stop to be as incredibly diverse as it is right now, we should assess if bannings are in order. Right now it would seem a very hasty and non facts related decision.

[alastair]

GB brings nothing to the format, and should be banned. I’ve enjoyed every game with Tin Fins over the last two months or so, and whilst not the most straightforward deck to play, it invalidates so much of the format. If Tin Fins stick GB, you may as well start sideboarding.

SnT and Reanimator are a bit of a different argument. I dislike SnT decks as there is no skill; but I don’t want to see the strategy lost as SnT into FSM, Omnisience, can at least give you some outs. Likewise, Reanimator still needs to turn guys sideways.

I worry about the DCI’s response; as their decision on Survival may point to a different solution.

[Lemnear]

Miracles and Esperblade won't keep anything "in check" if People would learn how to Play combo. Abrupt Decay slaughters miracles alone and esperblades current incarnations (def. would profit from Cabal Therapy) are insanly slow. Esperblade needs an Evolution towards Intuition+Cabal therapy+lingering souls

[Iron Buddha]

I've found Griselbrand to be much more threatening than Emrakul. Also, Pithing Needle is a horrible answer to Griselbrand, since there is still a 7/7 flying lifelinker left. The best answers are Counterspells and Discard (much better than Pithing Needle). No wonder that every DtB deck has either blue or black.

[Gheizen64]

This is a combo that is hugely buffed by the existence of Brainstorm. Hadn't brainstorm been there, any Griselbrand-based deck fold to discard. I am not for banning either.

[Lemnear]

Originally Posted by Carsten Kotter

What it all boils down to is that bannings should happen when a ban makes the game more fun for most players involved.

This is a consequent follow-up article after his bash of WotC for printing all those "i-win-buttons" within the last 3 years. However this writing was a bit too subjective for my taste. The quoted sentence and others bug me a lot, because I includes exactly the mindset I'm fighting for years:

"Just get enough people whine about a Card, so it gets banned"

Making "more fun for MOST players" a Ban-criteria would instantly result in a ban-orgy of Brainstorm, Wasteland, Stifle, Counters and all Combo, because we already know that "counters and Landdestruction are unfun" (due to WotC) and Kids are sad then they can't Play their 5cc beasts in Face of Storm and Reanimator.

Making "Fun" a superior criteria than "diversity" and especially "sane mind" leaves me breathless

[Kich867]

"Just get enough people whine about a Card, so it gets banned"

Making "more fun for MOST players" a Ban-criteria would instantly result in a ban-orgy of Brainstorm, Wasteland, Stifle, Counters and all Combo, because we already know that "counters and Landdestruction are unfun" (due to WotC) and Kids are sad then they can't Play their 5cc beasts in Face of Storm and Reanimator.

Making "Fun" a superior criteria than "diversity" and especially "sane mind" leaves me breathless

This isn't even close to accurate. The people that actually give any shit about legacy don't care about this beyond a vocal minority. Griselbrand is pretty dumb though. Banning him wouldn't impact diversity, Reanimator still has a ton of great options to stay alive as a deck it just won't be quite so derpy.