View Poll Results: Most bannable card in Legacy? (not that they will touch it)

Voters
192. You may not vote on this poll
  • Brainstorm

    16 8.33%
  • Force of Will

    4 2.08%
  • Lion's Eye Diamond

    35 18.23%
  • Counterbalance

    34 17.71%
  • Sensei's Divining Top

    103 53.65%
  • Tarmogoyf

    46 23.96%
  • Phyrexian Dreadnaught

    2 1.04%
  • Goblin Lackey

    4 2.08%
  • Standstill

    6 3.13%
  • Natural Order

    8 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1055 of 1178 FirstFirst ... 5555595510051045105110521053105410551056105710581059106511051155 ... LastLast
Results 21,081 to 21,100 of 23542

Thread: All B/R update speculation.

  1. #21081
    plays Mountains
    Ace/Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Philadelphia Area
    Posts

    2,257

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think that the upcoming Chancellor of the Scry 3 will be banned.

    The Source's thoughts?
    Why? What does it break?

  2. #21082
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Really? Why?

    So many people seem to want this, and I just don't get it.
    I should qualify my perspective: I don't want randomness per se, what I really want is a little more chance. I've played Modern, and in the old days, standard, and the amount of times your opponent *doesn't have it* are more often than in legacy. In Legacy we pretty much have to assume our opponents have exactly what they need or a Brainstorm, etc., to find what they need. It's much more solved, which I'm ok with. My small criticism is that with the cantrips, and even with some of the non-blue engines, the chance factor has been obliterated. In my little pea brain I want to have a chance at winning even against a 10/90 matchup. The lower the variance, the fewer times that happens. Everyone loves an underdog story, right?
    Brainstorm Realist

    I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner

  3. #21083

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew View Post
    You're looking at variance as something that can only be bad... like it only means getting mana screwed or flooded.

    If EVERY game you played of storm was: turn 1 cantrip, turn 2 cantrip, discard, turn 3 go off; then you would lose interest eventually. Variance means you occasionally get god hands and sometimes have to find creative ways to get out of bad situations. Variance means you don't always lose to Turn 2 decks and don't always beat Turn 4 decks. Variance leads to situations you talk to friends about between rounds.

    But yes, that means variance can lead to mana screw/flood non-games too.
    I like this variance. I don't want "have it" / "don't have it" variance, but "how" i did it variance. I have an ideal line my deck wants to go, but when the inevitable disruption comes, I want to have an option B/C/D ready, depending on the game state. That stuff is fun to me. Sometimes its like playing a completely different deck from round to round.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    Look at the bright side, if Legacy becomes like Vintage all of us old dudes can get together, drink whiskey, and smoke cigars while we play the gentleman's format. Like an MtG speak-easy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cire View Post
    And the Reserved List causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their portfolios: and that no man might buy or sell cards or Chinese rip offs, save he made a post about the Reserved List or the number of its Threads: 666.

  4. #21084
    Member

    Join Date

    Apr 2014
    Location

    New Jersey
    Posts

    218

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew View Post
    Why? What does it break?
    Not sure I agree it's THAT good, but a common complaint about The Card that Must Not be Named is it's unrivaled ability to improve opening hands. This guy has a similar effect for less upfront investment (it costs free) that can also pitch to Force or take over the game after the fact. Granted the deckbuilding cost is higher, but any blue deck that plans to hit 4 mana can run this guy to great effect.

  5. #21085

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    I should qualify my perspective: I don't want randomness per se, what I really want is a little more chance. I've played Modern, and in the old days, standard, and the amount of times your opponent *doesn't have it* are more often than in legacy. In Legacy we pretty much have to assume our opponents have exactly what they need or a Brainstorm, etc., to find what they need. It's much more solved, which I'm ok with. My small criticism is that with the cantrips, and even with some of the non-blue engines, the chance factor has been obliterated. In my little pea brain I want to have a chance at winning even against a 10/90 matchup. The lower the variance, the fewer times that happens. Everyone loves an underdog story, right?
    I get you, I think. That being said, it’s the skill of the pilot that makes a 10/90 matchup become 40/60 sometimes. Seriously though, I’ve seen tes players plough through trinispheres, chalices and all that just through skill and a bit of variance.

    It’s kinda nice that there is lower variance in some formats compared to others. If I want a wild game of nutty stories, I’ll play edh. If I want to test my skills, I’d play legacy.

    That being said, I’m curious what that 4cmc chancellor has that might be bannable. It seems underwhelming, though I can see it being the top of a mono-U stompy, featuring card advantage and not just lock pieces.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Legacy decks: mono U painter, strawberry shortcake, imperial painter, solidarity, burn
    EDH decks: zedruu voltron, rakdos the defiler, persistent petitioners, blind seer

  6. #21086
    plays Mountains
    Ace/Homebrew's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2011
    Location

    Philadelphia Area
    Posts

    2,257

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watersaw View Post
    Not sure I agree it's THAT good, but a common complaint about The Card that Must Not be Named is it's unrivaled ability to improve opening hands. This guy has a similar effect for less upfront investment (it costs free) that can also pitch to Force or take over the game after the fact. Granted the deckbuilding cost is higher, but any blue deck that plans to hit 4 mana can run this guy to great effect.
    I dunno... Why run a card that costs that isn't Jace? I don't think that's ever been done before.

  7. #21087

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    These posts have been some of the most interesting and insightful I've read in this thread.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think that the upcoming Chancellor of the Scry 3 will be banned.
    Thanks!

    I think that card is sweet but not good enough - it's a 4 mana 4/4, which decks that can abuse the Scry don't want, and decks that might want the body have way better options and probably don't care about the Scry.

    What deck do you think would play it?

    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    If you don't want variance, play chess.
    So, I actually get this a lot, and there are a couple of reasons why I don't/it's not as relevant here:

    1. It's much harder to find opponents for chess in a casual context - I can play Legacy with my other buddies who play Legacy and also play in tournaments, but for chess it'd pretty much only be events.

    2. The collectability aspect of Magic is fun - the cards themselves are fun to handle/look at, and there's some personalization available, which breeds attachment.

    3. (This might betray me as a rank novice, so any Chess masters feel free to correct me here, but:) Chess has less leeway in terms of "creative" or "orthogonal" strategies - there are a number of reasonable openings, but ultimately the game has similar trajectories for both players. I enjoy decks like Storm or Miracles or Elves that aim to be orthogonal to typical strategies - engine combo has a different textural feel than midrange, and I like that Magic has that.

    Variance exists on a spectrum in games, and I simply prefer it present, but dialed down. Other examples are Scythe and Root - both have variance in terms of cards drawn, but outcomes are largely determined by good decision making, rather than luck. I've lost some games of Scythe and Root to luck, but far fewer than in magic, and typically they were closer than the Magic games decided by luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew View Post
    You're looking at variance as something that can only be bad... like it only means getting mana screwed or flooded.

    If EVERY game you played of storm was: turn 1 cantrip, turn 2 cantrip, discard, turn 3 go off; then you would lose interest eventually. Variance means you occasionally get god hands and sometimes have to find creative ways to get out of bad situations. Variance means you don't always lose to Turn 2 decks and don't always beat Turn 4 decks. Variance leads to situations you talk to friends about between rounds.

    But yes, that means variance can lead to mana screw/flood non-games too.
    I think these are great points, and another that you didn't mention that supports your point (and is a strike against chess in favor of Magic, contributing to Magic's continued popularity/longevity) is that variance helps low skill/new players win a couple games, which encourages them to keep playing.

    However, to continue my other point earlier, variance isn't a toggle, it's a spectrum - I would just prefer my games to be determined 10% by variance and 90% by skill, rather than, say, 40%/60%.

    I don't mean for people to think that I want Magic to be entirely deterministic, just that I feel that a lot of people want to move the needle closer to 40/60, and I want to speak for the 10/90 side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Safety View Post
    In my little pea brain I want to have a chance at winning even against a 10/90 matchup. The lower the variance, the fewer times that happens. Everyone loves an underdog story, right?
    Sure I do, but I love it way less than I love feeling smart because of good plays I made. Winning a 10/90 matchup because your opponent mulliganed to 5 and then drew bricks every turn is meaningless.

    The underdog stories that are really inspiring are the ones that overcome adversity through work/dedication/cleverness.

    Edit: people posted ahead of me using 10/90 and 40/60 as well; I just want to clarify that I am not using those as "matchup stats," I am using them as, "percentage of games determined by luck vs. percentage of games determined by skill"

  8. #21088
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    3. (This might betray me as a rank novice, so any Chess masters feel free to correct me here, but:) Chess has less leeway in terms of "creative" or "orthogonal" strategies - there are a number of reasonable openings, but ultimately the game has similar trajectories for both players. I enjoy decks like Storm or Miracles or Elves that aim to be orthogonal to typical strategies - engine combo has a different textural feel than midrange, and I like that Magic has that.
    You're not wrong, but I am no master, lol. I've been studying chess for 2 years now, not just playing, actually studying tactics, openings, games where the strategies are named. You can call the Italian game a 'king's pawn opening' if you want, but it has a specific way it is approaching the game (like instead of UW control it's called 'Miracles'.) Chess is solved, no doubt. The dirty secret to chess, as far as I see it, is 'how well can you memorize different lines of play'. It's all pretty much been done before. People have preferred openings that are offensive or defensive, traps, and ways of leveraging every part of the game (opening, development, endgame.) There are combo wins (Fried Liver attack, Max Lange attack), there are control based games (Pirc defense in black, the classic opening, the Scandinavian defense) and there are tons of variations of the two (the king's indian comes to mind.) The big difference is the pieces are established right from the beginning. There is no variance, only human preference and error.

    What I like about MtG, and you touched on it, is that there is a collectability aspect and the opportunity to create. Chess doesn't create, it only plays. Magic creates, plays, and most importantly, changes. Legacy changes the least, I'll grant that, but it does change. What legacy offers is a way to master a deck the way a chess player masters his favorite opening. Sometimes you run into the strategy that perfectly foils you, sometimes you steam-roll them. Then you add the sideboard and it's a totally different aspect. It's like playing white when you lose or if you win the die roll.

    This is why I'm fine with Brainstorm being so good, why it's ok that blue itself is so good. Legacy is a chess game more than any other format. It leverages skill, it tests your ability to adapt, and it rewards practice. I can't help but feel that the anti-brainstorm crew wants to devolve the format to the point of modern or even standard in terms of consistency.

    I'll say it again, it feels like a creationist debate. One side is looking to spin facts to lead to their conclusion while the other is letting the facts lead where it may.
    Brainstorm Realist

    I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner

  9. #21089
    Global Moderator
    mistercakes's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2009
    Location

    Copenhagen
    Posts

    2,274

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    "This is why I'm fine with Brainstorm being so good, why it's ok that blue itself is so good. Legacy is a chess game more than any other format. It leverages skill, it tests your ability to adapt, and it rewards practice. I can't help but feel that the anti-brainstorm crew wants to devolve the format to the point of modern or even standard in terms of consistency."

    I think that's quite a blanket statement about wanting to devolve to modern. This couldn't be further from the truth. There's a very narrow set of cards that no longer give deckbuilders any kind of creativity. You can say "but playing with ponder and brainstorm allow you to play so many options", but this is only relevant for local weekly events and nothing at a competitive level.

    If you want to play a game that is more skill, don't just give chess as the only option. There's plenty. I played competitive fighters for some time, rts, fps games, and poker. Those are all games that in general the better player wins.

    Even if you exclude the cantrips, I would make a healthy wager that most Depths players are stealing wins left and right due to bad opponents, or even good opponents that don't understand the intricacies of the deck. (list/sb options/how the deck works under fringe conditions)

    There's a reason why cards like vampiric tutor, demonic consultation, mystical tutor, and survival were banned. In general they provide a level of consistency which the rest of the format is unable to keep up with. Brainstorm+Ponder+Preordain+fetches allow for a similar, albeit slower effect on the game.


    Brainstorm is fine, it's a novel card. The others are just boring, and the other colors are either far behind/banned.

    (edit b/c i had written on my phone originally and added in the italics)
    -rob

  10. #21090
    Member
    talpa's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2016
    Location

    Italy
    Posts

    141

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    i don't claim that ponder is to have the same effect as (...) infernal tutor. what it does allow you to do is keep 1 land hands, and that is also what brainstorm allows you to do
    No they don't. If you ever play blue, please continue keeping this one-lander ponder, so you'll continue losing. And even more certainly, brainstorm DOES NOT let you keep one lander, because you then will die "brainstorm locked" not being able to shuffle.
    (Not even mentioning that your kind of reasoning would only work on the play, because if you keep one land one cantrip on the draw, god forbid your opponent starting with targeted discard...)

    These are precisely those kind of posts that don't let me take seriously cantrip-haters complaints. Just complain about consistency if you really need to, but don't oversell it please.




    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    blue decks (...) are converging each year on becoming the same good-stuff deck
    And this comes over again and again, I can't stop myself from answering. Wrong. False. Not real.
    Can't everybody please stop saying ANT and Miracles are the same thing?! "goodstuff deck" WTF?! they ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT MIDRANGE DECKS. Stop. Just Stop.
    If you want to try and convince anybody who loves blue (like me) of your ideas, please note that your point of view would be taken more seriously if you avoided this laughably propositions.
    (and sorry for quoting you again, it's just that this come over and over)
    Quote Originally Posted by taconaut View Post
    Are Storm, Miracles, Grixis, and Sneak and Show really converging? Are they really goodstuff decks? I don't think this claim bears scrutiny. If you mean that the only essentially viable midrange deck with blue is Grixis, then sure. But blue decks are clearly diverse, even if they share cantrips
    +1




    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    There's a reason why cards like vampiric tutor, demonic consultation, mystical tutor, and survival were banned. In general they provide a level of consistency which the rest of the format is unable to keep up with. Brainstorm+Ponder+Preordain+fetches allow for a similar, albeit slower effect on the game
    That's another exaggeration. They increase consistency, but not at that level. Nor they are so flexible as tutors are. Cantrips come with a cost too (you can play down this as much as you want, but there is a cost): the tempo you lose by playing "air" is not negligible and you can lose because of that (I am not saying the advantages do not overcome the costs, otherwise one would not play them, it's just that they are not "exactly" free). They also make you more vulnerable to tax strategies (thalia, spheres, pillars, eidolons, etc), while a strategy of "simple" redundance in threats does not. The key is that "albeit SLOWER".




    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    If you don't want variance, play chess.
    Apart from the way you put it, this observation deserves answers and discussion, and plenty of people already did. I'd like too to add something about variance, as I think it could be one of the core reasons of the "cantrip debate".

    What are differences between chess and magic? Well, there is not only the randomness part that many already pointed out; you also have a game of hidden information, where (usually) nobody can know what you will draw in the future, and your opponent (usually) can't know for sure what you are already holding. I always loved to describe magic, for those who don't know it and asked me what it was, as a mixture of chess and poker. This not only allows for bluffs, "opponent reading", "mind tricks", etc but also add a different level of complexity in trying to plan against the unknown.
    Then, there is another thing that makes magic different from chess: you don't have a metagame in chess, everybody plays against the same thing.

    So, what cantrip detractors aren't admitting is that CANTRIPS DO NOT MAKE VARIANCE MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR (and I really am wondering if they are exaggerating for the purpose of arguing or they really don't get it. It could very well be they are overestimating the impact of cantrips on variance, be it because they generally don't play them and so have less experience, or because everyone of us has a selective memory -so you recall that time where your opponent cast a brainstorm while standing behind on board and destroyed you, but you don't recall those other time when after two ponders and a brainstorm the opponent couldn't find anything).
    You don't play two-cards combo (show, reanimate) with only cantrips and 4 copies of the combo pieces. Why is so that you add sneak to complement show and tell and 8 creatures instead of four? because cantrips by themselves aren't enough to warrant consistency, even in the dumbest of the combo (sorry show players, it's just an example ) you need to make the list as a whole more solid.

    So, do I dislike variance in principle? Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't be playing magic. But the "variance" I like is of the kind "I have to find a route against what my opponent deck is trying to do in general as an archetype, now in particular considering what and how he played, and taking into account the card in my hand and what I could draw". I certainly don't like the kind of variance where one of the players doesn't play magic because he/she gets mana screwed or mana flooded. Guess one of the things you can do to reduce (but not eliminate, mind you) this kind of "bad variance"? Cantrips.
    Finally, there is another kind of variance that I hate: loopsided matchups. This also allows situations where one of the two players doesn't stand a chance, therefore the match is not really about playing magic.

    Somebody already spoke about why one should like a certain amount of variance (10%) but not too much (match decided at 40% by pure luck). I'd invite you to take into account matchups too, and pairings also are pure luck. So if 30% is luck in the form of pairings, why should you want another 40% of luck in the form of variance? That would leave you with way too little importance of skill in the outcome of a match.





    PS. As somebody already said. If you play other formats, be it standard, limited, vintage, you'd notice -as someone already said- that legacy is the format where ALL DECKS exhibit more consistency, even non-blue ones. The outcome for a Vintage game, for example, with more powerful cards in single copy, really can depend on who was the first who found the more broken card (wherein Legacy has less powerful cards in more copies, and redundancy of course is a way to reduce variance). In standard, on the contrary, flood and screw really are much more relevant. I really can't understand why anybody should want a "more standard" legacy. We have a format with powerful cards but also solid decks, cantrips are part of it (just like tutors, advantage engines, recursions, etc).
    Last edited by talpa; 01-04-2019 at 06:53 AM.

  11. #21091
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Mulligans with cantrips is a good talking point, one that has been done frequently. One land Brainstorm keeps are sketchy, one land Ponder keeps are slightly less sketchy because you get to see an extra card and shuffle away non-lands. The risk factor goes down if you have 2 Ponders or a Brainstorm and a Ponder. Two Brainstorms is almost as bad as 1 Brainstorm if you only have one land. Locked is locked, spending a turn to see one extra card is inefficient by legacy standards. I think the conversation a while back about fetchlands was really productive because it opened my eyes to the nature of how free shuffle effects and perfect mana affect the low variance of legacy.

    Put another way, I see playing non-blue in Legacy like seeing Chuck Norris enter a saloon where there are 10 cowboys with loaded Smith & Wessons. In this fantasy world, you know Bruce might get nicked or even get shot in a non-vital area like a bicep or calf. But you also know those muthafuckas are in for a world of hurt. It doesn't change the fact that a gun is better way to win a fight than martial arts, so you'd better make sure you're Chuck Norris level badass when you go into that saloon. If you're going into legacy, make sure what you're bringing something that can keep up with the gunslingers. It doesn't change the fact that you're going into a saloon where everyone is packing heat, that's just the nature of a saloon, take it or leave it.

    There are definitely Chuck Norris decks in legacy. Look at Lands, Death and Taxes, Dredge, Reanimator, Depths, Dragon Stompy, and Eldrazi (to name a few common ones ATM.) They know what they are facing, but they're Chuck Fuckin' Norris, they'll distract you with chest hair and fuck your shit up.
    Brainstorm Realist

    I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner

  12. #21092
    Global Moderator
    mistercakes's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2009
    Location

    Copenhagen
    Posts

    2,274

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    you can also focus on cantrips towards midgame, and especially late game. this is not to compare them to combo decks, although combo decks can also utilize this (not as well).

    if you are playing deck X (non-blue), there are far fewer topdecks that can solve a random board state than in blue. i think unfortunately SDT solved this problem for non-blue decks, there may be some good arguments for bringing back SDT and banning the real problem card with top (counterbalance). it was a bit overpowered with miracles, but it did give other colors the ability to manipulate their library and was a great turn 1 in any deck (even ANT was using it, not to speak additionally for doomsday)

    let's use a scenario like mid/late game -> ponder -> brainstorm -> shuffle -> snapcaster -> removal spell/answer

    there's very few cards outside of cantrips that can provide this. of course it can be said that there's a cost associated with it, but it's a much smaller cost than running a bunch of random answers and hoping to draw the right one at the right time.

    green has GSZ, but other colors are hurting a bit, at least at a reasonable cost. sylvan library is probably the next best card in terms of card selection at a low cmc, and maybe you can add faithless looting as it flashes back.

    cantrips solve this problem by being relevant early game as well.

    it's maybe better to just hope the other colors get some toys like how red is getting light up the stage

    currently the DTB is more or less the following:

    A) cantrip decks
    B) decks that hate on cantrips
    C) decks with synergies so good they do not need A or B

    it would be nice to see some more decks that can squeak by and deal their 20 without any of those 3, but maybe those days are just long gone for legacy.
    -rob

  13. #21093

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    it's maybe better to just hope the other colors get some toys like how red is getting light up the stage
    When the screenshot of that was just spoiled, I was hoping so hard that spectacle wasn't going to be, "If you have some guys..." and then... it was.

    dontknowwhatIexpected.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    currently the DTB is more or less the following:

    A) cantrip decks
    B) decks that hate on cantrips
    C) decks with synergies so good they do not need A or B

    it would be nice to see some more decks that can squeak by and deal their 20 without any of those 3, but maybe those days are just long gone for legacy.
    Not to be cheeky, but what fourth category could you possibly have here? Anything that isn't A or B is C.

  14. #21094

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew View Post
    I dunno... Why run a card that costs that isn't Jace? I don't think that's ever been done before.
    I know you're being rhetorical but I got bored and curious which ones I could think of-

    Sower
    Diminishing Returns
    Misthollow Griffin
    Slithermuse
    Mindbreak Trap


    ;3

  15. #21095
    Member
    pettdan's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts

    704

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    currently the DTB is more or less the following:

    A) cantrip decks
    B) decks that hate on cantrips
    C) decks with synergies so good they do not need A or B

    it would be nice to see some more decks that can squeak by and deal their 20 without any of those 3, but maybe those days are just long gone for legacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by taconaut View Post
    Not to be cheeky, but what fourth category could you possibly have here? Anything that isn't A or B is C.

    It's a reasonable question, I checked for a few decks that would fit although these are probably debatable:

    Deadguy Ale, Maverick, Zombardment, Pox, 12 Post, Nic Fit, The Rock, Enchantress, Jund, Team Italia, Imperial Painter, Strawberry Shortcake, Goblins, Humans, Slivers, Affinity

    I'll note that expanding group 3, the set of synergies that are competitive, would increase format diversity which Mistercakes asked for, it doesn't have to come from a fourth group.

    Edit: so basically, since all decks have synergies, group 4 would be decks that have synergies that aren't currently very competitive. [edit: which would by definition not be a dtb, so there is no 4th group. Ah, this is Taconaut's point, I somehow interpreted a wider question first]

  16. #21096
    Global Moderator
    mistercakes's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2009
    Location

    Copenhagen
    Posts

    2,274

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I was just typing this up.

    This is what I had, but your list is more exhaustive.

    Maverick
    Jund
    BW
    Nicfit
    Enchantress

    Affinity
    Cloudpost
    Tribal decks

    And zoo I suppose.
    -rob

  17. #21097
    Member
    pettdan's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts

    704

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I read through the recent discussion and again I get the impression that posts represent two groups of players: those who care more about how games play out and a bit less about format diversity, and those who care more about format diversity and a bit less about how games play out.

    When players who like one aspect don't understand the qualities asked for by another group, then we get a detailed discussion on technical aspects that don't consider the greater picture.

    Edit: every deck does what it can to reduce its variance, or rather to control its variance. Be that Brainstorm, GSZ, Gamble, 35 Merfolk or whatever. That's fine, or well up for discussion, but when one consistency tool (any tool really as indicated by Deathrite, though there were options) ends up ruining deck diversity it is probably not fine.

    The aspects I mentioned above, format diversity and how games play out, can be detailed and expanded on. For example, play experience is another aspect, how different decks feel when they play out their strategies.

    ...

    Now just an observation, a bit long, but this is just peripheral to my main point which is above. Not sure about its relevance, but it's providing a perspective on the discussion. I think that players who enjoy playing a current dtb are probably more inclined to enjoy the tactical and technical aspects of playing, we can compare it with chess-like qualities, they probably play a cantrip shell, and the players who value format diversity, creativity and strategy of the game they tend to play some decks that are not in the dtb section (these qualities are not covered by poker or chess it seems). If you play a dtb then you are enjoying your games because you get what you want out of the game and you have a good shot at doing well in a competitive setting such as a GP and you keep winning over non-dtb's. While if you are in the second group, you are likely playing a less competitive deck and you may be less content with how your efforts at deck building tend to lead to losses to the dtb's.

    This is a natural relationship between dtb's and other decks, but the question is maybe how static those dtb's are, and how large the gap is to the non-dtb's. Like, how often does a non-dtb top8 or win a large tournament? Also, if the gap is too large, will group 2 decrease as people give up on playing non-dtb's? How will this affect the enjoyment of games for group 1 players? If everyone plays grixis control, grixis delver, miracles, ant, elves, eldrazi and turbo depths, for example, is this a problem for the format? I think actually, we probably were approaching that, the convergence of dtb's, with grixis control and grixis delver before the deathrite ban, only the hardcore group 1 players seemed to be enjoying the constant deathrite mirrors and the format was not enjoyable for a large group of players. Similarly Countertop Miracles was too dominant for too long in my view.

    Hmm, I'd argue that the convergence of dtb's being an unpleasant experience for most players illustrates that an opposite development, with a substantial widening of the dtb's, would be very enjoyable for most players.
    Last edited by pettdan; 01-05-2019 at 08:35 AM.

  18. #21098
    It's not easy being green

    Join Date

    Jul 2010
    Posts

    1,635

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    I'd consider myself to be among the people who enjoy the technical/tactical aspect. Thing is, one of the things I enjoy playing out on the table are different engines. It's just fun when the decks feel really truly different. Part of that is the strategy they take (fair/unfair, control/beatdown and so on), part of it is the flavour with which that is done.

    Elves and Storm are in many ways the same deck: Fiddly, fast engine combo that makes a pile of mana and goes through a lot of cards and plays a big sorcery that instamurders you. But even when they're comboing off to melt your face on T3, doing pretty much the same thing from a strategic viewpoint. We can take a dry, difference-flattening wording to what they're doing - both are fiddling with their cards and making mana and drawing them, but in practice they feel refreshingly different since they're totally different ways to do the same thing.

    Same thing with eg. Ancestral Vision and Loam. Both can amount to drawing three cards, but the whole mechanical operation to achieve that end result gives two decks with a similar aggression/control bent a really different feel. And even if Grixis Control does the same thing of being some midrange value pile, it just has far less character to it than Shardless or Loam/Knight decks.

    It's that different texture to doing the same thing that's a good part of my fun. Same thing when you play an aggressively tuned BUG Delver and RUG Delver back before everything became 4c bleh. Similar gameplan? You bet. Different texture? You bet. Less so than eg. RUG vs. D&T, but it was there.

    tl;dr I love engines and the engine counts from mistercakes' listing are miserable:

    116 Cantrips
    13 Knight of the Reliquary
    11 Redundancy
    8 Vial
    7 Loam
    6 Ancestral/Cascade
    4 Elves
    4 Oddball
    3 Standstill
    3 Dredge

    All the non-cantrip engines combined (which includes blue Brainstorm decks, mind you, and nonviable nonsense like Goblins and Standstill) add up to 59 lists. That means 34% of the sample overall, and 51% of the total count of cantrip lists. The Brainstorm% of for the sample is 73%.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear
    (On Innistrad)
    Yeah, an insanely powerful block which put the "derp!" factor in Legacy completely over the top.

  19. #21099
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mistercakes View Post
    I was just typing this up.

    This is what I had, but your list is more exhaustive.

    Maverick
    Jund
    BW
    Nicfit
    Enchantress

    Affinity
    Cloudpost
    Tribal decks

    And zoo I suppose.
    So basically decks that have been powercreeped out of the format either by raw efficiency of the cantrip decks or by the power level of blue non cantrip cards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  20. #21100
    Bald. Bearded. Moderator.
    Mr. Safety's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2010
    Location

    Hell in a Nutshell
    Posts

    5,246

    Re: All B/R update speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by pettdan View Post
    I read through the recent discussion and again I get the impression that posts represent two groups of players: those who care more about how games play out and a bit less about format diversity, and those who care more about format diversity and a bit less about how games play out.

    When players who like one aspect don't understand the qualities asked for by another group, then we get a detailed discussion on technical aspects that don't consider the greater picture.

    Edit: every deck does what it can to reduce its variance, or rather to control its variance. Be that Brainstorm, GSZ, Gamble, 35 Merfolk or whatever. That's fine, or well up for discussion, but when one consistency tool (any tool really as indicated by Deathrite, though there were options) ends up ruining deck diversity it is probably not fine.

    The aspects I mentioned above, format diversity and how games play out, can be detailed and expanded on. For example, play experience is another aspect, how different decks feel when they play out their strategies.

    ...

    Now just an observation, a bit long, but this is just peripheral to my main point which is above. Not sure about its relevance, but it's providing a perspective on the discussion. I think that players who enjoy playing a current dtb are probably more inclined to enjoy the tactical and technical aspects of playing, we can compare it with chess-like qualities, they probably play a cantrip shell, and the players who value format diversity, creativity and strategy of the game they tend to play some decks that are not in the dtb section (these qualities are not covered by poker or chess it seems). If you play a dtb then you are enjoying your games because you get what you want out of the game and you have a good shot at doing well in a competitive setting such as a GP and you keep winning over non-dtb's. While if you are in the second group, you are likely playing a less competitive deck and you may be less content with how your efforts at deck building tend to lead to losses to the dtb's.

    This is a natural relationship between dtb's and other decks, but the question is maybe how static those dtb's are, and how large the gap is to the non-dtb's. Like, how often does a non-dtb top8 or win a large tournament? Also, if the gap is too large, will group 2 decrease as people give up on playing non-dtb's? How will this affect the enjoyment of games for group 1 players? If everyone plays grixis control, grixis delver, miracles, ant, elves, eldrazi and turbo depths, for example, is this a problem for the format? I think actually, we probably were approaching that, the convergence of dtb's, with grixis control and grixis delver before the deathrite ban, only the hardcore group 1 players seemed to be enjoying the constant deathrite mirrors and the format was not enjoyable for a large group of players. Similarly Countertop Miracles was too dominant for too long in my view.

    Hmm, I'd argue that the convergence of dtb's being an unpleasant experience for most players illustrates that an opposite development, with a substantial widening of the dtb's, would be very enjoyable for most players.
    While i appreciate this post and your perspective, there is still a small but noticable point you left out. One section accepts what legacy is and the other is trying to argue that legacy should be something else. The 2nd group has some people that have actually left the format. The 1st group soldiers on and attempts to reconcile how the format works. One is engaged and will likely continue to be engaged. The 2nd is unengaged and is likely to continue in that direction. I have immense respect for people with tenacity. I don't look down on people leaving the format, quite different actually. I feel sad, almost melancholy, because when they leave they take their experience away from the community. I understand its about appraoch to the format, but there is a practical effect as well.
    Brainstorm Realist

    I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1966 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1966 guests)