Is 23% of the top spot too much for one deck? How about two?

[Ingo]

Both Dreadnought and Dark Depths are, in my opinion, examples of really well designed cards and infinitely less ban-worthy than TNN, Delver, or even Tarmogoyf.

The interesting thing about Dark Depths and Thespian's Stage is that they're hard to integrate in a blue shell, because they don't blend well with the cantrip-fetchland minimalism towards landdrops. That would have been a great design, if it would be deliberate (which wasn't the case if i'm not mistaken).

[Dice_Box]

I would bet a large sum your right, because at printing Stage and Depths could not interact in a positive fashion.

[phonics]

I think that one major issue that underlies things is that (non green) creatures have become so good that green doesnt have an identity anymore. Red used to be the color with an identity crisis since burn maxed out its power, and wotc moved away from land destruction, but it has now found a new identity as the sideboard/ splash/ hate color, partially because of the prevalence of blue decks. Similarily creature efficiency maxed out with goyf (before it got neutered by delve/drs stuff) and green has been trying to find a niche for itself. Green staples in the format are the elves package (which is almost like an inbred synergy deck), loam, GSZ, decay and maybe goyf, then you have things like crop rotation, veteran explorer, food chain, tireless tracker, hierarch and KOTR. Sure DRS and Leovold are 'green' but I would say DRS almost fits into any 3+ color deck it wants to be in, and leovold is more blue than green. Nic fit is sort of the closest to what I would think an archetypal green deck would be, but otherwise green has become a weird combo/ control color.

tldr; creatures used to be greens thing, but now it isnt.

[Lemnear]

Honestly I question if the people claiming they're the same even play very much, Lemnear has said he's stopped yet remains one of the most opinionated people in these threads, it's telling.

Where did I do that? Beyond that, you take "the same" more literal, than I originally framed it in the past or it is in regards to this thread. The topic was, if it's a problem if the prior color- & carddiversity across the tempo/midrange/control is narrowed down to UBx, or just a normal development. You are free to disagree with the all those who are bored of the T1 U.Sea into DRS mirrors we saw the last year in paper, streams and coverages.

[WashableWater1]

There isnt a bigger natural order target, at least not one that kills faster. 20/10=2 turns. 20/15 is still a 2 turn clock. Progenitus would still be a good NO target until it dipped below 7 power, when it might not be worth it anymore. 7 power Progenitus (inkwell) doesn’t even see play these days in reanimator any more. The speed of the clock combined with the resistance to removal. A 5 mana halfgenitus might be neat in nic fit. I don’t see how “you have two turns to answer me” and “you have 7 turns to answer me” are direct analogues to each other.

[Dice_Box]

I don’t see how “you have two turns to answer me” and “you have 7 turns to answer me” are direct analogues to each other.

They are not. That's not the argument I was making. That one is a card you have to jump though hoops to play and if you draw it you lose the ability to use it at all and the other is a three mana Blue spell that you can block shit with forever and attach equipment to. The thing that joins them is they blank interaction.

I'm not suggesting the two are interchangeable, I am suggesting the lower opportunity cost on TNN with the most powerful part of Progenitus is the reason it's more powerful. Looking at the bottom left in isolation ignores all the other shit involved in that equation. Progenitus is strong, TNN is stronger.

I am happy to agree to disagree if you really think that Progentis beats TNN. Because to me it's like saying Wasteland beats a fetch. Technically it's true, the fetch is a legal target, but really your missing a ton of context if you want to make that argument.

[FZA]

Interesting discussion going on here. First and foremost I will disagree with the notion that Czech and Delver are the same deck, I think they are pretty clearly different strategically. And perhaps more telling is that some strategies that are weak against Czech are good against Grixis Delver (e.g. Death and Taxes, Maverick, Stoneblade, BUG Delver) and vice versa (12-post Eldrazi, Food Chain). The decks are clearly distinct.

Here are my more general thoughts on DRS, the dominance of UBx fair decks compared to other fair strategies, etc:

The fundamental problem with Legacy nowadays in my opinion is that is not enough reward for playing fair deck outside of the UBx core. This has resulted in a less diverse metagame with Grixis Delver and Pile together making up the lion's share of results for fair decks. Miracles is the one exception, and I'd argue it's presence is overinflated by a very dedicated community behind it.

There are a multitude of reasons behind UBx's dominance and IMO it's silly to pin it on any one card specifically. Overall the issue is that U and B now provide basically everything you want in a fair deck, which close to eliminates the need to play other colors except as a light splash (made easy by DRS).

As far as solutions the main debate seems to be whether it's better to go after the "main culprits" (DRS, Brainstorm) or leave these cards alone and target weaker but also problematic cards (Probe, TNN, Leovold, Angler). For now I am in the latter camp because while DRS and Brainstorm are strong cards, I agree with Stryfo that they have positive effects on gameplay that many players like.

A card like TNN on the other hand is almost strictly bad for the format for two reasons: 1) It creates low-quality game play due to being extremely uninteractive and 2) it furthers pushes UBx to the top of the totem pole by giving it the one of the best threats in the format, that also happens to be best answered by black cards, further pushing players to play UBx.

TNN isn't as ubiquitous as Deathrite or Brainstorm but in my opinion people underestimate the effect in has on the meta. There's little reason to keep it around other than keeping merfolk and stoneblade relevant as fringe decks. Banning it would be a good place to start if we want more diversity among fair strategies in Legacy.

Honestly though, this is the first time I'm really hoping to see a change with the B&R announcement. I know people don't like Legacy to change too quickly but we're at the opposite extreme at this point, having not really had any new innovations since the Top ban. And I think this is largely due to any potential new strategy, particularly anything fair, being thoroughly outclassed by Grixis Delver and Pile, or some close variant of them.

[WashableWater1]

So is the working theory that non-blue fair decks have bad matchups against fair blue decks and thats why they struggle? It has nothing to do with their matchups against combo decks?

People keep talking about how you have to play narrow answers, typically in black to answer True-Name. Has anyone tried the 0 mana removal spells "Ignore It" or "Race It"? They've done well for me in testing.

[Fox]

So is the working theory that non-blue fair decks have bad matchups against fair blue decks and thats why they struggle? It has nothing to do with their matchups against combo decks?

People keep talking about how you have to play narrow answers, typically in black to answer True-Name. Has anyone tried the 0 mana removal spells "Ignore It" or "Race It"? They've done well for me in testing.

Well for the non-blue fair decks left, it's a bit hard to ignore/race TNN (primarily in Delver) with a strategy that is not even more suicidal vs Hymn/SCM/Kcomm. It wouldn't be hard to avoid artifact type and dies to shock, but that discard spam of Hymn/Snap Hymn makes it pretty hard to assemble a strategy that is big enough, generically competitive enough, and still isn't somehow demolished by Kcomm and recursion. The low to the ground removal fair decks need to isolate a Delver deck's TNN duo as the only source of clock is significantly different than what they would need versus Czech Pile's value strategy. Such fair deck pilots aren't lazy/inept, those schizophrenic demands are rather impossible to reconcile; their deck's winrate drops and they have to move on to different decks - that'd be okay if it weren't such a mass exodus into so few [competitive] fair outlets.

[Megadeus]

So is the working theory that non-blue fair decks have bad matchups against fair blue decks and thats why they struggle? It has nothing to do with their matchups against combo decks?

People keep talking about how you have to play narrow answers, typically in black to answer True-Name. Has anyone tried the 0 mana removal spells "Ignore It" or "Race It"? They've done well for me in testing.

Oh wow you figured it all out. You're so much smarter than everyone else that plays legacy. I'm sure this post will lead to a massive realization in non Blue deck strategy that spawns a new era in legacy of non Blue fair decks that race and ignore true name because nobody has been trying to figure out the best way to do that since 2013!

[Dice_Box]

People keep talking about how you have to play narrow answers, typically in black to answer True-Name. Has anyone tried the 0 mana removal spells "Ignore It" or "Race It"? They've done well for me in testing.

So that's the issue, you actually have missed the problem people have with the card. Ok.

The issue is not that TNN is some kind of all powerful win button, it never was. The issue is that the card pushs both parties to playing battlecrusier magic, ignoring the other as they smash past one another. That is something we laugh at Standard for doing. TNN makes us do that here.

It's the lack of interaction people dislike. So when your suggestion is "Interact less" your missing the point. What we are asking for is more options to interact, not less. The best way to deal with TNN is to cease interaction and that is the part we all despise.

[FZA]

So is the working theory that non-blue fair decks have bad matchups against fair blue decks and thats why they struggle? It has nothing to do with their matchups against combo decks?

It's both. But in the past non blue fair decks were able to make up for their weaker combo matchups by being favored against blue fair decks.

Nowadays, why bother when blue you gives a much better combo matchup AND is still favored against you?

People keep talking about how you have to play narrow answers, typically in black to answer True-Name. Has anyone tried the 0 mana removal spells "Ignore It" or "Race It"? They've done well for me in testing.

What is this magical deck you're playing that's (a) a fair deck and (b) doesn't care about being pressured by TNN?

As others have said it's not that TNN is some unbeatable monster that instantly wins the game for blue decks the second it hits the field. It's just yet another problem for non blue decks in a format where they are already disadvantaged because of the lack of cantrips. You can't deny that banning it closes the gap at least a little bit.

[maharis]

Interesting discussion going on here. First and foremost I will disagree with the notion that Czech and Delver are the same deck, I think they are pretty clearly different strategically. And perhaps more telling is that some strategies that are weak against Czech are good against Grixis Delver (e.g. Death and Taxes, Maverick, Stoneblade, BUG Delver) and vice versa (12-post Eldrazi, Food Chain). The decks are clearly distinct.

Here are my more general thoughts on DRS, the dominance of UBx fair decks compared to other fair strategies, etc:

The fundamental problem with Legacy nowadays in my opinion is that is not enough reward for playing fair deck outside of the UBx core. This has resulted in a less diverse metagame with Grixis Delver and Pile together making up the lion's share of results for fair decks. Miracles is the one exception, and I'd argue it's presence is overinflated by a very dedicated community behind it.

There are a multitude of reasons behind UBx's dominance and IMO it's silly to pin it on any one card specifically. Overall the issue is that U and B now provide basically everything you want in a fair deck, which close to eliminates the need to play other colors except as a light splash (made easy by DRS).

As far as solutions the main debate seems to be whether it's better to go after the "main culprits" (DRS, Brainstorm) or leave these cards alone and target weaker but also problematic cards (Probe, TNN, Leovold, Angler). For now I am in the latter camp because while DRS and Brainstorm are strong cards, I agree with Stryfo that they have positive effects on gameplay that many players like.

A card like TNN on the other hand is almost strictly bad for the format for two reasons: 1) It creates low-quality game play due to being extremely uninteractive and 2) it furthers pushes UBx to the top of the totem pole by giving it the one of the best threats in the format, that also happens to be best answered by black cards, further pushing players to play UBx.

TNN isn't as ubiquitous as Deathrite or Brainstorm but in my opinion people underestimate the effect in has on the meta. There's little reason to keep it around other than keeping merfolk and stoneblade relevant as fringe decks. Banning it would be a good place to start if we want more diversity among fair strategies in Legacy.

Honestly though, this is the first time I'm really hoping to see a change with the B&R announcement. I know people don't like Legacy to change too quickly but we're at the opposite extreme at this point, having not really had any new innovations since the Top ban. And I think this is largely due to any potential new strategy, particularly anything fair, being thoroughly outclassed by Grixis Delver and Pile, or some close variant of them.

Good post.

To me there are, let's say, 4 factions regarding the the state of the format vis-a-vis Deathrite Shaman decks (again, the major conceit of this thread. I'm not listing "Brainstorm is busted" or "Gitaxian Probe is busted" because I think the first isn't going anywhere and the second is obviously dumb, but removing it and doing nothing else is probably not on the table.)

1. Everything is fine. There are a good mix of strategies and gameplay is interesting. Still some room to try spicy ideas.

2. Deathrite Shaman is too good. Having this creature as an auto include in fair decks is bad for the format. Puts too much pressure on niche strategies.

3. UBx is too good. It doesn't matter if you ban Deathrite Shaman and do nothing else, because the power level of this particular color combination is so high that cards like TNN, Leo, Strix, SCM, Jace, Lilianas will always crowd out other options. There's too much of an incentive to put all the same cards into your fair deck no matter what the overall strategy.

4. Banning Sensei's Divining Top was a mistake. This is a bit of a dark horse but there are plenty of people who felt that the Top-Miracles era effectively put a brake on UBx while opening up other fringe strategies to prey on Miracles decks (like 12post).

I'm firmly in camp 3 but would have liked to see some other ban hit Miracles. Top's effect on tournaments is so overrated. It's total confirmation bias. I played a Modern tournament the other day and there was a UWx mirror in the first round. They played one game. Those kinds of decks will always be a slog.

I believe they will go with No. 2. Then we will see if anything is able to breathe. I really would like them to just go nuts tomorrow, and take out stuff they KNOW is stupid, even if they do also take DRS.

The thing about TNN and Leovold, and Strix to an extent, is that they are basically a plan unto themselves with no deckbuilding cost. That pressures a lot of the format, but what it really robs is a deck that might want to exploit some other high-ceiling, low-floor synergy. Shardless BUG is a good example from recent history. Why limit your interaction and play Ancestral Vision when you can just eke out advantage over and over and then have a better payoff card than a Grey Ogre?

The discussion of Natural Order is also a good one. Sure, it's not the same pace as TNN, but TNN does 9 by the time Progenitus wins. That is, its taken half the opponent's life. Is it not better to avoid to two-for-oneing yourself, filling your deck with 4cc sorceries and uncastable hydra, instead having more efficient spells that can keep your opponent at bay while you get in?

In the past cards like Stoneforge Mystic and Tarmogoyf have had this issue. However, a number of other things have moved around them. Most notably, there's better answers (Fatal Push, Kolaghan's Command). Similarly, they aren't as intense in deckbuilding requirements. You can play a lot of different white or green decks. But as the best cards consolidate into U, and specifically UBx, the deck construction space narrows.

[Megadeus]

The difference (as has been noted before) in prog with NO and True Name is the build around. One requires a deck to be fairly built around the "combo" requiring a sufficient number of green creatures plus 3+ natural order plus an uncastable ten mana creature (not to mention a fairly awkward mana base, GG can be tough to assemble). The other requires... The already defacto best color in the format? I mean yeah a 10/10 in a vacuum is better than a 3/1, but if you're simply comparing the P/T then you're just being willfully ignorant or completely disingenuous in your comparison.


On another note legacy classic today in Atlanta looked pretty miserable. I played the modern classic because I'm tired of shit legacy but i walked through and 90% of top tables were DRS/BS piles, Dark Depths decks, and Blood Moons. Long past seem to be the days where Atlanta had an interesting meta. All of the old guard are tired of the format. I noticed the people i used to play with here are over it. It used to be between rounds there would be ten to fifteen of us hanging out talking about the rounds. Today there were 3 of us counting me who chose to #GoPlayModern because I'm not #SkillIntensive enough to want to play the #PillarOfTheFormat in Brainstorm

[Poron]

3+ colors strategies all die with DRS

in my opinion that’s the next ban around

[Lemnear]

On another note legacy classic today in Atlanta looked pretty miserable. I played the modern classic because I'm tired of shit legacy but i walked through and 90% of top tables were DRS/BS piles, Dark Depths decks, and Blood Moons. Long past seem to be the days where Atlanta had an interesting meta. All of the old guard are tired of the format. I noticed the people i used to play with here are over it.

Isn't that the core of the whole discussion about the formats status quo we have here? That UBx is 23% of the metagame and the "DRS/BS piles" taking regulary half of the T8 spots because it's not only widely played but also drastically overperforms? That people are freaking tired of seeing DRS/BS pile mirrors trying to win with TNN or Leovold or Angler respectively? So to fall back on the original question of this thread: Is 23% of one single core too much or simply a natural development we have to accept, with DRS being "the next Ponder" in regards to being a no-brainer in every deck?

To me there are, let's say, 4 factions regarding the the state of the format vis-a-vis Deathrite Shaman decks (again, the major conceit of this thread. I'm not listing "Brainstorm is busted" or "Gitaxian Probe is busted" because I think the first isn't going anywhere and the second is obviously dumb, but removing it and doing nothing else is probably not on the table.)

1. Everything is fine. There are a good mix of strategies and gameplay is interesting. Still some room to try spicy ideas.

2. Deathrite Shaman is too good. Having this creature as an auto include in fair decks is bad for the format. Puts too much pressure on niche strategies.

3. UBx is too good. It doesn't matter if you ban Deathrite Shaman and do nothing else, because the power level of this particular color combination is so high that cards like TNN, Leo, Strix, SCM, Jace, Lilianas will always crowd out other options. There's too much of an incentive to put all the same cards into your fair deck no matter what the overall strategy.

4. Banning Sensei's Divining Top was a mistake. This is a bit of a dark horse but there are plenty of people who felt that the Top-Miracles era effectively put a brake on UBx while opening up other fringe strategies to prey on Miracles decks (like 12post).

I think that sums it up very well. I sit in camp 3 without a doubt, because in a nutshell DRS is just a lovechild of lavamancer and Birds of paradise, so I have a hard time calling the card broken if the format has Brainstorm, Ponder, SnT & other stuff around. However, DRS is displaying the essence of "cheating on landcount in favor of mid-/lategame power" by being a manasource and colorfixer which turns into a machinegun whenever you don't need the mana anymore. So to some extend it just expands what Ponder & Brainstorm do for most decks: Enabling greedy manabases with a very low landcount. Giving mid-/lategame "reach", colorfixing and manacceleration to UBx, the historically stongest color combo, was a mistake, but so were Ponder, Delver, TNN, Preordain, Snapcaster, Angler, Probe, etc. if we ask about critical mass for that slice of color. I am not even convinced that banning DRS would achieve more than having the card replaced by Noble Hierarch to power/support peoples Delvers, TNNs, Snapcasters, Meddling Mages, Canonists, saint trafts and Mentors.

All I personally would like to see is some color & core diversity between tempo, midrange and control reinstated which we lost over the years.

Imo the chatter about SDT was and is misleading at best, pointing to some fringe decks, which had a chance to either get under Countertop or stumble over their own clunkiness in the process, to justify a meta which was in a stanglehold of Miracles vs Decay/DRS. I think we want to improve the situation, not going back to a miserable metagame we had full 4 years of. The format doesn't need one-sided Chalice @ 0/1/2/3 or 1-mana instant speed wraths to handle combo or (the non-existant) aggro.

[MechTactical]

Imo the chatter about SDT was and is misleading at best, pointing to some fringe decks, which had a chance to either get under Countertop or stumble over their own clunkiness in the process, to justify a meta which was in a stanglehold of Miracles vs Decay/DRS. I think we want to improve the situation, not going back to a miserable metagame we had full 4 years of. The format doesn't need one-sided Chalice @ 0/1/2/3 or 1-mana instant speed wraths to handle combo or (the non-existant) aggro.

Solution: Ban CB unban TOP!

[Poron]

Magic allowed two colors
Fetchlands allowed 3
DRS allowed 4

May be going back to 2-3 colors would make the format fairer..

Think to a world of 4 colors with white. Czech Pile would get even StP with SCM too many good cards in one only deck

[Echelon]

Define fair. Banning DRS pretty much is a boon to the unfair decks as grindy, control-y decks take a hit

[Poron]

Well

FoW
BS
Shaman
Bolt
Fatal Push (in modern meta it’s even better than StP with fetchlands)
Pyroblast
Hymn
Flusterstorm

Snapcaster to recast them all

Either you play with this deck or someone else will play you around. That’s the definition of unfair.

Fetchlands are fair just because they are for every colors, but with Brainstorm they become unfair compared to every other color, therefore everyone plays Brainstorm

That’s pretty much the definition of unfair again: strict superiority that kills variance