All B/R update speculation.

[Crimhead]

Super-Wraths for :w: at potentially instant speed are beyond dumb and one of the major stifling influences in the format development.On the other hand, have you tried playing control with little or nothing in the way of creatures (especially early and mid game)?

Lands squeaks by with a Ton of denial and 3x Maze + 4ea Grove & PFire. That's it. D&T, BUG Control, Blade Control all run little dudes. Pox, Enchantress, Stacks, MUC all are too weak - creatures are just that good now.

Terminus allows a control deck not focused on it's creatures to thrive. It doesn't make any deck unbeatable or objectively OP.

[GundamGuy]

creatures are just that good now.

Ha that's a good one. :laugh:

[HSCK]

On the other hand, have you tried playing control with little or nothing in the way of creatures (especially early and mid game)?

Lands squeaks by with a Ton of denial and 3x Maze + 4ea Grove & PFire. That's it. D&T, BUG Control, Blade Control all run little dudes. Pox, Enchantress, Stacks, MUC all are too weak - creatures are just that good now.

Terminus allows a control deck not focused on it's creatures to thrive. It doesn't make any deck unbeatable or objectively OP.

I've been keeping meta data for two years and Miracles is far and away the best performer over that time period, that's an extended period of dominance. Not sure why you think look at six events is a better metric than that. I don't think Wizards cares about sculpting a format where they have to have decks with few creatures and why that's even close to being important.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Ha that's a good one. :laugh:

Deathrite Shaman and delver are for chumps

[GundamGuy]

Deathrite Shaman and delver are for chumps

Edit: Just to be clear, I was laughing at the "just that good now" part.

Delver and Deathright Shaman are amazing creatures, they also don't give miracles problems....

Delver and Deathright wouldn't be impossible to deal with even should Terminus be banned.

Point would have made more sense if you named something like TNN.

Edit 2:

Just throwing this out here as well, but Countertop was a thing before Terminus... it was just good against a portion of the field isntead of being above average in every matchup.

[iatee]

I've been keeping meta data for two years and Miracles is far and away the best performer over that time period, that's an extended period of dominance. Not sure why you think look at six events is a better metric than that. I don't think Wizards cares about sculpting a format where they have to have decks with few creatures and why that's even close to being important.

When the best deck still probably has fewer than 20% of people at a tournament showing up with it, it's hard to feel like it's a problem for that reason alone - compare it to Standard, where the meta is less diverse at pretty much any given period. In fact, Miracles would be easier to beat if even more people played it, because then more people would dedicate more cards in their SB to the match.

[GundamGuy]

When the best deck still probably has fewer than 20% of people at a tournament showing up with it, it's hard to feel like it's a problem for that reason alone - compare it to Standard, where the meta is less diverse at pretty much any given period. In fact, Miracles would be easier to beat if even more people played it, because then more people would dedicate more cards in their SB to the match.

What cards do you have in mind, and do you think would start to show up in sideboards more?

Edit: Also Legacy is a pretty diverse format, when 1/5th of the field is on the same deck list that might not actually be health. I don't know that there is an actual % of the field number at which a deck becomes a problem or is too fringe to be a problem, and I'm not sure thinking about it this way is a good approach... but I also think going the other way and suggesting it's only 1 in every 5 decks in the room so it's NBD, is a bit off too.



Where would the format be without Miracles? Probably in a spot with alot more Elves!, but who knows.

I would expect more Mavrick, perhaps the return of Zoo, and Goblins moving up in the ranks a bit.

[JBlaze]

I would be okay with a ban on Top. Not because of miracles dominance but with the aim of improving overall tournament logistics.

[iatee]

What cards do you have in mind, and do you think would start to show up in sideboards more?


if literally everyone at the scg open yesterday had 3 pithing needles in their sb, I don't think miracles would have very many spots in the t32.

[GundamGuy]

if literally everyone at the scg open yesterday had 3 pithing needles in their sb, I don't think miracles would have very many spots in the t32.

I'm not sure I agree.

I don't think Pithing Needle is all that strong vs. Miracles.

It's not awful, but it's not a win all by it's self so devoting 3 slots to it seems...

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

I would expect more Mavrick, perhaps the return of Zoo, and Goblins moving up in the ranks a bit.

Maverick won't come back as its been outdated by Jund and Shardless, both are simply better midrange decks with more powerful cards, Zoo is still laughable as why play a deck predicated on playing the best aggressive creatures in the format when you can't play the actual best Aggro creature (Delver of Secrets) and Goblins steamrolls miracles, banning its best MU would make it worse.

[Crimhead]

I've been keeping meta data for two years and Miracles is far and away the best performer over that time period,Ifr your data shows Miracles placing in significantly higher proportions than it's being played, I'd be surprised.


that's an extended period of dominance.We must have different ideas of 'dominance'.


Not sure why you think look at six events is a better metric than that.Five consecutive major events might not be the full picture, but it's more than enough to refute any notions of this monstrous Miracles deck ravaging the format.

Also, five recent events is far more representative of the current meta than any data you have over ten months old.


I don't think Wizards cares about sculpting a format where they have to have decks with few creatures and why that's even close to being important.It's called diversity. And thankfully Legacy isn't a sculpted format as such.

[Admiral_Arzar]

It's called diversity.

Claiming a format with 70-80% blue penetration is diverse is like claiming the USA circa 1800 was ethnically diverse. At least all those white Europeans were from different countries of origin, right?

[Crimhead]

Claiming a format with 70-80% blue penetration is diverse is like claiming the USA circa 1800 was ethnically diverse. At least all those white Europeans were from different countries of origin, right?I wasn't arguing that the format is or isn't diverse. I think we've been through and through the nuanced ways in which in the format is and is not diverse. Let's not go there.

I was responding to the text I quoted, which questioned the significance of creatureless decks in the meta. Maybe you and hsck don't see creatures centric vs non creature centric as a strategic distinction of significance? I certainly do.

[HSCK]

I wasn't arguing that the format is or isn't diverse. I think we've been through and through the nuanced ways in which in the format is and is not diverse. Let's not go there.

I was responding to the text I quoted, which questioned the significance of creatureless decks in the meta. Maybe you and hsck don't see creatures centric vs non creature centric as a strategic distinction of significance? I certainly do.

If you think looking at the last 5 events is all that's needed to see what a format is then there is nothing more to discuss, suffice it to say it's one of the poorest ideas I've seen yet on how to manage a format.

[Stevestamopz]

If you really want the format to change and to also nerf miracles, ban the number 1 problem card. Brainstorm. Arguments about banning top or counterbalance or even Terminus are hysterical to me when the card that enables not only Miracles, but also every other boring goodstuff+cantrips.dec is Brainstorm.

[tescrin]

Claiming a format with 70-80% blue penetration is diverse is like claiming the USA circa 1800 was ethnically diverse. At least all those white Europeans were from different countries of origin, right?

This actually disproves your own point just fine. Just because their skin color is the same doesn't mean that their gene pool is non-diverse.
Quit being actually-racist.
(Hint: White is a race and countries that white people come from are actually countries and subsets of genes that happen to have similar skin color while being genetically diverse is a thing.)

Ever notice how you can tell Norse bloodlines by their jawline, hair color, or eye color.. from say.. Spanish?


Just like your absolutely terrible example, Blue being everywhere is still fairly diverse regardless of 16 cards being the same. It's like saying every BG deck has Decay, every Red deck has Lightning Bolt, or similar; it misses the point; especially when the expected penetration of *every* color in should be around 60% (3 color decks.) If blue is 70%, it's not *that* different.

[mistercakes]

the problem with banning a card like brainstorm gives the non-brainstorm combo decks a huge advantage over the rest of the field. being able to dig 3 cards deeper to keep other decks honest is probably more important than worrying about control decks being too unfair. i would also argue that cabal therapy would then become the strongest card in a post-ban-brainstorm format.

[TheFlyinGutchman]

Banning top seems like a big middle finger because it's one of the few, if not the only, good providers of card selection that can be used by any color.
Banning brainstorm has been beaten to death, and is imo a dumb idea for a number of reasons.
Banning terminus seems like a decent idea if one is gunning to take Miracles out, though I don't see strong enough evidence that such action needs to be taken against my deck of choice, but there is obviously bias there.

[btm10]

On the other hand, have you tried playing control with little or nothing in the way of creatures (especially early and mid game)?

Lands squeaks by with a Ton of denial and 3x Maze + 4ea Grove & PFire. That's it. D&T, BUG Control, Blade Control all run little dudes. Pox, Enchantress, Stacks, MUC all are too weak - creatures are just that good now.

Terminus allows a control deck not focused on it's creatures to thrive. It doesn't make any deck unbeatable or objectively OP.


I basically agree with this, though I think the decline of those other decks have more complex (and varied) causes. Pox suffers from its inability to close quickly once they've stripped their opponent of resources, allowing opponents to draw out of it (aided by the fact that they usually have library manipulation and the Pox player usually doesn't) and is actually great at dealing with creatures; Enchantress has excellent creature matchups (RUG Delver is the hardest by far and it's 50/50 at worst) - it doesn't see much play because its combo matchups are quite bad and its anti-combo sideboard options aren't as strong as Lands' are. Creatures that get in under the lock are a problem as old as Stax, even to the deck's original incarnation as "The Four-Thousand Dollar Solution" in Vintage, so you're sort of right in that creature decks are both naturally more popular with more powerful cheap creatures and that those same creatures are more effective against the slow, plodding control decks that hard prison once both preyed on and relied on to hold traditional aggro in check. You're basically spot-on with why MUC isn't good, though its decline arguably goes back to Masques' free spells and early aggro-control decks like Miracle Gro, U/G Madness, and U/G/x Threshold. I think that Arrogant Wurm, Werebear, Nimble Mongoose, and Mystic Enforcer are about where creatures should be, so maybe a world without MUC isn't all that bad.


Yeah I think people really underrate the 'what proportion of people are showing up with this deck' factor when they look at results - and that's usually hard to know. Miracles is not unbeatable, it is the best control deck and control players are going to want to play the best pure control deck. It is also generally accepted to be the hardest deck to pilot and something with game against almost anything, which are also things that are going to attract a lot of good players. Good players playing good decks should be expected to do well in a tournament.

If we were to look at what % of players at a legacy event show up with a pure control deck, I wouldn't be surprised if that number were *lower* than its equivalent in most standard metas because legacy's meta is so wide in comparison, and most of the less played played decks are not control.

That said, I think Top is not a card particularly well designed for tournament play. I actually enjoy playing vs Miracles in non-competitive tournament settings, where my opponent can make more optimal decisions and I don't have to worry about them playing slow if they win g1. But it's kinda dumb to have a single card that wrecks so much havoc on every single organized legacy tournament's operations.

This. I agree with basically all of this. Right now it looks like the meta is adapting to Miracles being extremely popular, and based on the coverage (sadly, I couldn't make the Open this weekend), the event was wall-to-wall Miracles. It will take some time for the meta to shake out, but it'll happen sooner rather than later. It's not time to ban anything yet. That being said, Top is miserable to play against and it's not as simple as calling slow play more aggressively.

[Barook]

Banning top seems like a big middle finger because it's one of the few, if not the only, good providers of card selection that can be used by any color.
If Top is so great, then why is it barely run by any nonblue decks?

That statement is incredible generic and can be used for anything, e.g.


Banning Mental Misstep seems like a big middle finger because it's one of the few, if not the only, good provider of free countermagic that can be used by any color.

If Top had to go, it would be because of the blue shells that abuse it the most, not because of the nonblue decks which run it. It's the degeneracy (or other problems like logistics) that counts, not the fair things you could do with a problematic card.

[Dice_Box]

I think if you wanted to take Top out of Miracles, you could do so by taking Counterbalance out of the format and leave Top in for Painter, Junk/Jund, 12 Post or Nic Fit. Now while I understand these decks don't play it all the time or win often enough for people to remember they play it at all, it's worth noting they do and they exist. Hell even Pox plays it at times.

Top is played by non Blue, just because those decks are not always at the top tables doesn't mean it's not happening.

[Crimhead]

If you think looking at the last 5 events is all that's needed to see what a format is then there is nothing more to discuss, suffice it to say it's one of the poorest ideas I've seen yet on how to manage a format.
I never said that - in fact I provided six months of SCG data in a link. And note that my looking at the five most recent events was in direct response to you having cited one event. One. :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is that if Miracles sees only six spots in five consecutive major top8s, obviously the format is more than capable of "handling" it.
Five's not a magic number - just what was on the first page. We can go back further if you want (on my way to work now).

Edit - I think those five events might be a better representation than you think, at least for miracles. Taking six (top eight) spots in five events is exactly 15%. MTG top8 has Miracles at 16%, while Goldfish lists it at 15.79%. This is roughly where it's been every time I've looked since the DTT ban (before which it hovered around 20%).

I don't think we actually disagree on the numeric facts (I sure hope not). We disagree as to what constitutes a dominant deck. Its okay if we disagree on this. But to me ~15% =/= tearing up the meta. Miracles has its poor MUs within the top tier, and it hasn't reduced the meta to a small pool of viable decks. It also makes a difference to me that Miracles' "dominance" in top brackets seems to be roughly in tow with its "dominance" at the sign-up desk.

[swoop]

Unban Mm. Should fix the format return the clamp as well

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Admiral_Arzar]

This actually disproves your own point just fine. Just because their skin color is the same doesn't mean that their gene pool is non-diverse.
Quit being actually-racist.
(Hint: White is a race and countries that white people come from are actually countries and subsets of genes that happen to have similar skin color while being genetically diverse is a thing.)

Ever notice how you can tell Norse bloodlines by their jawline, hair color, or eye color.. from say.. Spanish?




Successful troll is successful? The example was purposefully terrible (for reasons that you accurately illustrated in your response). The nonsense Crimhead was spouting didn't deserve an analogy that was actually good.

[GundamGuy]

Maverick won't come back as its been outdated by Jund and Shardless, both are simply better midrange decks with more powerful cards, Zoo is still laughable as why play a deck predicated on playing the best aggressive creatures in the format when you can't play the actual best Aggro creature (Delver of Secrets) and Goblins steamrolls miracles, banning its best MU would make it worse.

You might be correct about Maverick and Jund / Shardless.
Delver of Secrets is a great card, and I don't see it going anwhere, but the reason Delver of Secrets is better then Wild Nacatal is because it slots into a tempo build better. The "conditional trigger" (which Tempo decks can design around) is a bigger draw back then Wild Nacatals drawback... but it's extremely easy to slot Delver into a tempo deck that negates most 95% of the drawback.

Goblins does have a positive matchup against Miracles, but your looking only at that matchup, and ignoring that Miracles is doing a great job of reducing the number of "fair" decks in the meta, and pushing for the rest of the non-miracles meta to be decks that Goblins has problems with. So yeah this might seem counterintuative, but I think miracles going away would increase the number of "fair" decks that Goblins would end up playing each tourniment and be good for Goblins.... If you only look at the head to head, then I think your are ignoring the true impact of a banning which is a shift in the overall meta.


I never said that. What I'm saying is that if Miracles sees only six spots in five consecutive major top8s, obviously the format is more than capable of "handling" it.
Five's not a magic number - just what was on the first page. We can go back further if you want (on my way to work now).

I think it's incorrect to focus only on the top 8 results.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

You might be correct about Maverick and Jund / Shardless.
Delver of Secrets is a great card, and I don't see it going anwhere, but the reason Delver of Secrets is better then Wild Nacatal is because it slots into a tempo build better. The "conditional trigger" (which Tempo decks can design around) is a bigger draw back then Wild Nacatals drawback... but it's extremely easy to slot Delver into a tempo deck that negates most 95% of the drawback.

Goblins does have a positive matchup against Miracles, but your looking only at that matchup, and ignoring that Miracles is doing a great job of reducing the number of "fair" decks in the meta, and pushing for the rest of the non-miracles meta to be decks that Goblins has problems with. So yeah this might seem counterintuative, but I think miracles going away would increase the number of "fair" decks that Goblins would end up playing each tourniment and be good for Goblins.... If you only look at the head to head, then I think your are ignoring the true impact of a banning which is a shift in the overall meta.

That's the point, you can't really play cat and delver in the same deck, delver as an aggressive strategy is just straight up better then zoo or affinity, your namesake card is more aggressive then wild nacatl, and rewards you for building a deck with a bunch of disruption. To put it simply, would you rather play a 3/3 with no evasion backed up with more dudes and burn, or a 3/2 flier backed up with countermagic and removal, in the face of storm and show and tell, most definitely the second one.

It might help goblins but taking away its best matchup results in more BUG delvers to randomly hymn you out of the game, more lands to beat you to death with 20/20s and punishing fire, a meta game that may actually be more hostile to goblins given what it's doing has largely been outdated by better creatures and stronger disruption suites.

[GundamGuy]

I never said that. What I'm saying is that if Miracles sees only six spots in five consecutive major top8s, obviously the format is more than capable of "handling" it.
Five's not a magic number - just what was on the first page. We can go back further if you want (on my way to work now).


That's the point, you can't really play cat and delver in the same deck, delver as an aggressive strategy is just straight up better then zoo or affinity, your namesake card is more aggressive then wild nacatl, and rewards you for building a deck with a bunch of disruption. To put it simply, would you rather play a 3/3 with no evasion backed up with more dudes and burn, or a 3/2 flier backed up with countermagic and removal, in the face of storm and show and tell, most definitely the second one.

It might help goblins but taking away its best matchup results in more BUG delvers to randomly hymn you out of the game, more lands to beat you to death with 20/20s and punishing fire, a meta game that may actually be more hostile to goblins given what it's doing has largely been outdated by better creatures and stronger disruption suites.

You can't play Cat and Delver in the same deck, Zoo and Tempo are totally different strats anyway... To answer your question, it depends on the meta... current meta 100% delver for sure.
In a meta without Miracles, likely still 100% delver, but I don't think it's right 100% of the time.

It might result in more BUG Delver, but is randomly getthing hymned out of the game a huge problem for a deck that runs Goblin Matron and Goblin Ringleader? Seems like you can out "Card Advantage" them even if they randomly hit a goblin or two. I also don't know that "more" lands will be the result.

Also Goblins has never been about having the "best" creatures, or "strong disruption suites." It's alwasy been about being resilient, and overwhelming in the long run.

All this aside, how do you see the meta changing in a post-miracles world? More BUG Delver / Shardless BUG?

[Admiral_Arzar]

All this aside, how do you see the meta changing in a post-miracles world? More BUG Delver / Shardless BUG?

I would play an insane amount of High Tide if Counterbalance wasn't a thing in the meta.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

I would play an insane amount of High Tide if Counterbalance wasn't a thing in the meta.

Surprising actually no one.


You can't play Cat and Delver in the same deck, Zoo and Tempo are totally different strats anyway... To answer your question, it depends on the meta... current meta 100% delver for sure.
In a meta without Miracles, likely still 100% delver, but I don't think it's right 100% of the time.

It might result in more BUG Delver, but is randomly getthing hymned out of the game a huge problem for a deck that runs Goblin Matron and Goblin Ringleader? Seems like you can out "Card Advantage" them even if they randomly hit a goblin or two. I also don't know that "more" lands will be the result.

Also Goblins has never been about having the "best" creatures, or "strong disruption suites." It's alwasy been about being resilient, and overwhelming in the long run.

All this aside, how do you see the meta changing in a post-miracles world? More BUG Delver / Shardless BUG?

You made my point for me, they are different strategies but as aggressive strategies, Delver is straight up better then Zoo

Goblins being resilient isn't enough, the more powerful the format gets the more underwhelming goblins becomes, 1/1s for 3 that tutor 2/2 haste creatures for 4 that draw 3 cards isn't good enough, it's too slow, the cards you get aren't much better, yes you can hit that critical mass and swarm your opponent but it's considerably much more difficult then in years past.

Miracles is one RG lands worst MUs, take it away and all of a sudden, Lands only has to really worry about pure combo.

[barcode]

Miracles is one RG lands worst MUs, take it away and all of a sudden, Lands only has to really worry about pure combo.

Lands player here. I am okay with this.

[Crimhead]

I think it's incorrect to focus only on the top 8 results.
As do I! Over all Miracles has a win rate just over 50% - hardly a monster! I put a link to some data in the post you quoted(or maybe the post before that).

[GundamGuy]

As do I! Over all Miracles has a win rate just over 50% - hardly a monster! I put a link to some data in the post you quoted(or maybe the post before that).

Wining over 50% of the time against the field is actually really good. Most decks have a much more sinusoidal win rate curve*... (I just made this up on the spot so... uh... hold on for a second as I explain what I mean....)

*If you were to plot the win rate out of 100% on the Y axis and all the decks in the meta on the X axis, most decks would have some highs and some lows. For example Imperial Painter has a really bad Burn Matchup. Like Win 5%, Lose 95%, but a really good Lands matchup Win 85%, Lose 15%. Of course those are the extremes and some match-ups are closer to 55,45, and 50,50 etc.

I suspect if you created a chart like this (access to data is a problem...) and compared Miracles to other legacy decks you'd find Miracles doesn't have the highest win % against any deck in the meta, but has fewer extreme highs and and extreme lows... meaning that on average it performs above the curve and is more consistently good against the meta then average. (This is what makes it a top tier deck and I'd expect this to be true of all the top tier to some extent with perhaps a few more spikes)...

To put this another way... if you know the meta had an extreme amount of miracles (6 out of 9 matches), what deck would you play because it gives you a slam dunk win against Miracles...? (Expected win rate of 80% of the time against Miracles..?)

Is there a deck that wins more then 75% of the time against Miracles?

TL;DR

IMO: If one deck doesn't have any really bad matchups it's likely not healthy for the meta because the meta game is solved.




Miracles is one RG lands worst MUs, take it away and all of a sudden, Lands only has to really worry about pure combo.

Does Lands not have to worry about Bloodmoon?

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Sure but how many decks can run blood moon without punching themselves in the dick?

Not many

[Dice_Box]

Enough to cause headaches. Trust me on that.

[Barook]

Is there a deck that wins more then 75% of the time against Miracles?
12 Post?

Although that deck has different weaknesses that hold it back.

[GundamGuy]

12 Post?

Although that deck has different weaknesses that hold it back.

One of 12 Posts weaknesses is that Miracles can and often does have Blood Moon in the SB... (To be clear, I think you are right that 12 Posts has a pretty good Miracles Matchup)

I would think that MUD has an OK matchup as well. MUD is weaker to Swords and Terminus though. Maybe New MUD with Ugin is the savior we've been looking for...:eyebrow:

[Deckerator]

What about ending the talk of banning top, brainstorm or any miracles card. Be honest they dont ban any of those cards. Maybe in hundred years but that is still a long distance and not worth talking about. :-P

It is more interesting to talk about cards that can be unbanned and why.
For example some thought that Black Vise would have an impact for Delver decks, WGD for Reanimator...but nothing happened.
Maybe it is time to unban a card that has a little more impact on legacy than the last few unbanned cards.

[jrsthethird]

What about ending the talk of banning top, brainstorm or any miracles card. Be honest they dont ban any of those cards. Maybe in hundred years but that is still a long distance and not worth talking about. :-P

It is more interesting to talk about cards that can be unbanned and why.
For example some thought that Black Vise would have an impact for Delver decks, WGD for Reanimator...but nothing happened.
Maybe it is time to unban a card that has a little more impact on legacy than the last few unbanned cards.

But they don't unban without banning something. Might as well trade out Top.

[Quasim0ff]

But they don't unban without banning something. Might as well trade out Top.

That's not really true.

[Dice_Box]

That's not really true.
Citation required.

[Stevestamopz]

Maybe it is time to unban a card that has a little more impact on legacy than the last few unbanned cards.

They won't. They kept Black Vise and Worldgorger on it for so long, even though fucking Griselbrand was deemed fine I just don't see anything changing.

Here's the list for the lazy (http://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/gameplay/formats/bannedrestricted)

Mind Twist - When is this ever going to be better than Hymn to Tourach. Hint, rarely ever.
Earthcraft - I don't know shit, nor do i care about elves, but I think Julian said he wouldn't care about it so that's fine enough with me.
Survival - Probably too degenerate, but a lot of cards have been printed since it was banned that could keep it in check (Decay, Revoker, Rest in Peace). Also the format is much faster than it was back in 1934 or whenever it was that Survival was banned.
Frantic Search- Give high tide a break, the poor saps still grinding along with it deserve somthing.
Goblin Recruiter- Maybe Goblins elevate back to tier 2 from tier 400, maybe Food Chain-Gobs ruin the format. I somehow doubt Goblins would ever become a DTB but either way, Goblins players definitely deserve something after all the bullshit they've had to endure for the past 5 years.

[Quasim0ff]

Citation required.

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Timeline_of_DCI_bans_and_restrictions

Must've been hard.

[Dice_Box]

So in the history of Legacy we have only two times (September 09, June 12) seen cards unbanned in a non prisoner exchange situation. Every other time we have seen something off the list (June 07, June 10, December 10, January 15 and September 15) we have seen an exchange. Also the last time they unbanned a card (Land Tax, woop) without banning something was 3 years ago...

Sorry mate, it's true, these days they don't just unban things, they exchange them.

Vise, Dragon, they where worthless and people knew it. It's not even an exchange at this point. "Sure, we will take the automatic rifle off you, hear is a roll of toilet paper and an empty pen tube."

[Julian23]

Sorry mate, it's true, these days they don't just unban things, they exchange them.

From a scientific standpoint, this is a highly inaccurate statement to conclude from the tiny sample size of bannings/unbannings we have seen.

[Dice_Box]

From a scientific standpoint, this is a highly inaccurate statement to conclude from the tiny sample size of bannings/unbannings we have seen.
Well if we where going to go always by the numbers, Brainstorm would always be in first place of the top five cards Wizards writes about after each GP.

[Julian23]

No, Fetchlands would. But that would be a pretty boring story.

[Barook]

Well if we where going to go always by the numbers, Brainstorm would always be in first place of the top five cards Wizards writes about after each GP.
Except said writers don't do it because they don't want Brainstorm banned. (yes, that's actually the sad reality)

[Julian23]

I don't think that that's the reason. At least we have no reason to assume that when it seems much more likely, that it would just be plain boring to put the most palyed cards at the top of those lists.

What you wanna do put there are the cards that tell a story, cards that actually do something instead of cantrips. It's not about being a quantitative analysis of the meta; it's about being entertaining.

[keys]

One of 12 Posts weaknesses is that Miracles can and often does have Blood Moon in the SB... (To be clear, I think you are right that 12 Posts has a pretty good Miracles Matchup)

I would think that MUD has an OK matchup as well. MUD is weaker to Swords and Terminus though. Maybe New MUD with Ugin is the savior we've been looking for...:eyebrow:

Landstill is the Miracles killer. MUD is pretty good too.

[Quasim0ff]

Landstill is the Miracles killer. MUD is pretty good too.

So is Enchantress - Basically all Big Mana decks.

[AznSeal]

Wining over 50% of the time against the field is actually really good. Most decks have a much more sinusoidal win rate curve*... (I just made this up on the spot so... uh... hold on for a second as I explain what I mean....)

*If you were to plot the win rate out of 100% on the Y axis and all the decks in the meta on the X axis, most decks would have some highs and some lows. For example Imperial Painter has a really bad Burn Matchup. Like Win 5%, Lose 95%, but a really good Lands matchup Win 85%, Lose 15%. Of course those are the extremes and some match-ups are closer to 55,45, and 50,50 etc.

I suspect if you created a chart like this (access to data is a problem...) and compared Miracles to other legacy decks you'd find Miracles doesn't have the highest win % against any deck in the meta, but has fewer extreme highs and and extreme lows... meaning that on average it performs above the curve and is more consistently good against the meta then average. (This is what makes it a top tier deck and I'd expect this to be true of all the top tier to some extent with perhaps a few more spikes)...

To put this another way... if you know the meta had an extreme amount of miracles (6 out of 9 matches), what deck would you play because it gives you a slam dunk win against Miracles...? (Expected win rate of 80% of the time against Miracles..?)

Is there a deck that wins more then 75% of the time against Miracles?

TL;DR

IMO: If one deck doesn't have any really bad matchups it's likely not healthy for the meta because the meta game is solved.



Does Lands not have to worry about Bloodmoon?

12post

[Deckerator]

Yeah i see it that Wizards often bans and unbans in the same step.
Here is my list of the cards i would like to see unbanned:

Mystical Tutor - I would like to give him a chance but i am not sure about how he will perform in Storm decks.
I don't see that he will make Reanimator overpowered because there is so much graveyard hate, nowadays. That will Reanimator always keep in check.

Survival of the fittest - For me, Survival seems, a lot safer to be unbanned than Mystical Tutor. We have a lot of miracles around that can handle a swarm of Vengevines with Terminus easily. Furthermore like others said, there is still RiP, Deathrite, Revoker, Spellbomb and a lot more.

Hermit Druid - Wouldnt be that bad because there is a lot of graveyard hate and cheap creature removal. He has a cmc of 2 and no haste. Furthermore he is only 1/1. He can easily be removed in a meta with Bolt, Charms, Swords.

Earthcraft - I dont know a lot about this card and im not sure what Elves can do with it. But for me Elves has a lot of more power (4 Gaea's Cradle, Heritage Druid + Nettle Sentinel). I dont think that they abuse Earthcraft.

Mind Twist - Like you said, mind twist is really save. It is as "dangerous" as Black Vise was. X = 2 --> CMC @3 means a bad Hymn to Tourach... that not a way of beeing dangerous.^^

[Quasim0ff]

Mystical Tutor - I would like to give him a chance but i am not sure about how he will perform in Storm decks.
I don't see that he will make Reanimator overpowered because there is so much graveyard hate, nowadays. That will Reanimator always keep in check.


4Head

[rufus]

Yeah i see it that Wizards often bans and unbans in the same step.
Here is my list of the cards i would like to see unbanned:

Mystical Tutor - I would like to give him a chance but i am not sure about how he will perform in Storm decks.
I don't see that he will make Reanimator overpowered because there is so much graveyard hate, nowadays. That will Reanimator always keep in check.
...


And not any good in miracles decks either...:laugh:

[Deckerator]

And not any good in miracles decks either...[emoji23]
Ok my fault [emoji23] Forget Mystical Tutor. Too strong for miracles too
No MT

[GundamGuy]

What about ending the talk of banning top, brainstorm or any miracles card. Be honest they dont ban any of those cards. Maybe in hundred years but that is still a long distance and not worth talking about. :-P


You say that, but before DTT got the axe recently everyone was saying they would never in a million years ban DTT either...

Brainstorm is a waste of time to discuss it's not going to happen.

Top, or any Miracles Cards, I think are fair game to discuss and could actually get the axe at some point. (Not sayings it's likely, just saying it's not off the table... like Brainstorm.)

Also unbanning Earthcraft would push Enchantress over the top wouldn't it?

[Admiral_Arzar]

Also unbanning Earthcraft would push Enchantress over the top wouldn't it?

I don't think unbanning anything would push Enchantress over the top. Earthcraft might give the deck a fighting chance though, which I think is fine.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Enchantress still has the problem of losing too itself and not being particular good

[rufus]

...

Also unbanning Earthcraft would push Enchantress over the top wouldn't it?

I doubt it - Earthcraft wants lots of creatures, and Enchantress won't produce that unless you go with the combo. And if you do want to go the combo route I think enchantress already has better options than playing two individually weak cards.

Elves has Birchlore Rangers and Heritage Druid which, I think, are simply better in that deck.

IMO Earthcraft is a relatively safe unban.

[death]

IMO Earthcraft is a relatively safe unban.

People seem to be forgetting this guy:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcSujlfncIO3kJ_iaIvOESxHD-yfyxw-SbhUsULCNfa1nC5A7OW9X0JQ7KCEpQ&usqp=CAE

This guy was one of the reasons Survival got banned.


Survival of the Fittest - Gerry Thompson
Creatures (29)
1 Phyrexian Devourer
1 Shield Sphere
1 Triskelion
2 Necrotic Ooze
2 Basking Rootwalla
4 Birds of Paradise
4 Fauna Shaman
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Quirion Ranger
4 Vengevine
1 Shriekmaw
1 Wispmare

Lands (18)
1 Tree of Tales
1 Forest
4 Bayou
3 Savannah
1 Verdant Catacombs
4 Windswept Heath
4 Wooded Foothills

Spells (13)
1 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Survival of the Fittest
4 Enlightened Tutor
4 Thoughtseize


Step 1 Unban Earthcraft, if all hell breaks loose go to Step 2.

Step 2 Ban Enlightened Tutor.

From there we can then safely bring Survival back and Frantic Search.

[wcm8]

Earthcraft is not even all that busted anymore. What does it combo with, just Squirrel Nest? Both are answered by Abrupt Decay, can be pre-emptively discarded or countered, every deck has access to Pithing Needle, other combo decks can achieve their combo faster and just as (if not more) consistently, and there are a variety of control deck answers. If a card like Show and Tell is allowable, and if Entomb + 1-2 mana reanimation spells are allowable, I don't see why a relatively slow combo requiring multiple elements is unsafe. It being Not-Blue is also a factor. This card is arguably just as safe as other weird combo finishers, and it's not like Cephalid Breakfast or Oops All Spells is tearing up the metagame.

As mentioned before, Elves already has access to plenty of mana via 4x Gaea's Cradle and its creatures. So this would really just give a deck like Enchantress an occasional combo win and maybe push it into being a viable Tier 2 metagame deck rather than languishing as a Tier 3+ pile that's been outclassed for the last several years.

Alternatively, I *guess* some decks running green might add it somewhere to their 75 as alternative win condition, but then this still isn't much more busted than something like Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the Void or Rest in Peace. Less mana per combo element (which are individually next-to-worthless unlike Rest in Peace), but provides a slightly more fragile setup that is also an Abrupt Decay target. The Enlightened Tutor argument didn't apply to these elements either.

Existing decks already run plenty of answers (Wear // Tear, Golgari Charm, etc.) so even if it were a legitimate threat it's not as if answers are lacking. And let's say that somehow Enchantress were to actually become a legitimate, Tier 1 deck requiring actual consideration for sideboarding: cards like Back to Nature and Reverent Silence exist. And personally, I think it'd be cool to have another underdog fringe strategy that doesn't win via 'normal' creature combat become a viable metagame choice (similar to decks like Lands, MUD, etc.)

If stuff like Land Tax and Black Vise can be re-evaluated, Earthcraft deserves the same. Legacy is a very different format nowadays.

tl;dr unban Earthcraft already, it being on the banned list still is embarrassing.

[nedleeds]

Earthcraft is not even all that busted anymore. What does it combo with, just Squirrel Nest? Both are answered by Abrupt Decay, can be pre-emptively discarded or countered, every deck has access to Pithing Needle, other combo decks can achieve their combo faster and just as (if not more) consistently, and there are a variety of control deck answers. If a card like Show and Tell is allowable, and if Entomb + 1-2 mana reanimation spells are allowable, I don't see why a relatively slow combo requiring multiple elements is unsafe. It being Not-Blue is also a factor. This card is arguably just as safe as other weird combo finishers, and it's not like Cephalid Breakfast or Oops All Spells is tearing up the metagame.

As mentioned before, Elves already has access to plenty of mana via 4x Gaea's Cradle and its creatures. So this would really just give a deck like Enchantress an occasional combo win and maybe push it into being a viable Tier 2 metagame deck rather than languishing as a Tier 3+ pile that's been outclassed for the last several years.

Alternatively, I *guess* some decks running green might add it somewhere to their 75 as alternative win condition, but then this still isn't much more busted than something like Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the Void or Rest in Peace. Less mana per combo element (which are individually next-to-worthless unlike Rest in Peace), but provides a slightly more fragile setup that is also an Abrupt Decay target. The Enlightened Tutor argument didn't apply to these elements either.

Existing decks already run plenty of answers (Wear // Tear, Golgari Charm, etc.) so even if it were a legitimate threat it's not as if answers are lacking. And let's say that somehow Enchantress were to actually become a legitimate, Tier 1 deck requiring actual consideration for sideboarding: cards like Back to Nature and Reverent Silence exist. And personally, I think it'd be cool to have another underdog fringe strategy that doesn't win via 'normal' creature combat become a viable metagame choice (similar to decks like Lands, MUD, etc.)

If stuff like Land Tax and Black Vise can be re-evaluated, Earthcraft deserves the same. Legacy is a very different format nowadays.

tl;dr unban Earthcraft already, it being on the banned list still is embarrassing.

Good post. Would read again. Also moat, e-plague, revoker, suppression field, illness, virulent plague and worst of all Basic Forest.

[dte]

Elves has Birchlore Rangers and Heritage Druid which, I think, are simply better in that deck.


Honestly, Earthcraft is miles better than heritage or birchlore. It does not die from removal, does not care about creature type, requires only one creature to make mana...

If Earthcraft was unban, I don't know if I would add it to my elves decks or if I would just put some elves in my Earthcraft deck.
Earthcraft is a really brutal card. If you're evaluating it with squirrel nest, you're totally misreading the card. It's like thinking brainstorm is not bad because it can help countering a spell with counterbalance, but hell, CB + BS is not that scary as a combo, as it requires 2 cards to counter one, and is still conditional. So brainstorm is not really good.

[Quasim0ff]

Honestly, Earthcraft is miles better than heritage or birchlore. It does not die from removal, does not care about creature type, requires only one creature to make mana...

If Earthcraft was unban, I don't know if I would add it to my elves decks or if I would just put some elves in my Earthcraft deck.
Earthcraft is a really brutal card. If you're evaluating it with squirrel nest, you're totally misreading the card. It's like thinking brainstorm is not bad because it can help countering a spell with counterbalance, but hell, CB + BS is not that scary as a combo, as it requires 2 cards to counter one, and is still conditional. So brainstorm is not really good.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, as these creatures actually make up a significant part of the Elves engine.

Also, Earthcraft does little to nothing with regards to the 3 main ways elves win: Natural Order, GSZ as well as Glimpse of Nature.
Earthcraft genererates 1 mana per creature - Heritage and Birchlore can do much more than that.

[jrsthethird]

Ok my fault [emoji23] Forget Mystical Tutor. Too strong for miracles too
No MT

Unban MT, Ban Top. ;)

[rufus]

Honestly, Earthcraft is miles better than heritage or birchlore. It does not die from removal, does not care about creature type, requires only one creature to make mana...

...Earthcraft is a really brutal card. ....



I haven't done testing, so you may well be right. Quasim0ff already mentioned Natural Order, GSZ, and Glimpse. There are also lost creature synergies with Craterhoof Behemoth and Gaea's Cradle. The difference in mana cost is huge. Elves also doesn't run that many basic lands (though that's a minor issue).

Maybe there's something busted with Earthcraft that I haven't thought of, but everything I can think of seems less impressive than legal stuff.

[Crimhead]

I doubt it - Earthcraft wants lots of creatures, and Enchantress won't produce that unless you go with the combo. And if you do want to go the combo route I think enchantress already has better options than playing two individually weak cards.
I disagree that the cards are the individually weak. Squirrel's Nest makes chumps, which are certainly of value in a prison deck. And while Enchantress runs only four creatures, between GSZ and mulligans, there is usually one in play (which otherwise never needs to tap). Earthcraft allows your Enchantress to untap a land, which virtually always will have one or more enchantments on it.

If by weak you meant (individually) not as good as the average card in the deck, you might be right. But if you mean not particularly good at all, I disagree.

I'm uncertain if Earthcraft would make Enchantress competitive again. Enchantress has game against a lot of blue decks, and it can run Moon! Maybe giving the deck a way to pull wins off more quickly would give it the edge it needs. It worked for Lands. The build could change a little. Possibly Eidolon Of Blossoms for extra Earthcraft synergy? The deck would need to make room for the new pieces. Maybe the Squirrel chumps allow for skimping on defense? Does it run fewer other win cons (it didn't run many to begin with)?

I very much doubt it will make Enchantress over powered. It does nothing to help against its worst matches (combo). What it might do IG shore up the good MUs, which might be enough to put it on the map.

[dte]

I think you really take the things in the wrong way when you want to put Earthcraft in an elf deck. Even if I continue to say that Earthcraft >> heritage druid (and I play elf a lot, so I know about what the cart does).

Now, try to imagine Earthcraft paired with a monastery mentor, or a young pyromancer? with utopia sprawl/wild growth? with any good token maker?

Patrol signaler or squirrel Nest are not the right way to look at what Earthcraft can do. Elf neither. You can imagine a lot of combo or control archetypes that would be more than playable.

[Barsoom]

More than Squirrel Nest, i would like to see Earthcraft with Shrieking Drake, dunno if that would bring a competitive combo deck or not.

[Crimhead]

If anything gets the axe, it would be Top, based on past situations, mainly due to the durdle factor. Splash damage would be neglectable since the rest of the decks only take a laughable percentage of the metagame.
Jus because a deck is a negligible percent of the big circuit meta, it does not follow that hurting the deck has a negligible effect.

A deck which is rouge today could be strong tomorrow. Lands was weak a few years ago, but if a key card had been banned we'd never had known what we would now be missing.
Less obviously, Legacy is very different in smaller, more predictable metas. In a local scene, any deck which has strong MUs against (some) tier one decks could be the optimal choice. Imagine a local meta so bloated with Lands that a number of players have (correctly) started bringing glass cannon combos in response. High Tide could suddenly be the best deck you can choose, as it has fantastic MUs against that field. Similarly its not hard to imagine a local meta where Painter is the optimal answer - even if everyone is bringing tier one decks and playing to win! And note that the majority of competitive Legacy is small stakes local events.



If Top had to go, it would be because of the blue shells that abuse it the most, not because of the nonblue decks which run it. It's the degeneracy (or other problems like logistics) that counts, not the fair things you could do with a problematic card.Absolutely. If a card is creating a problem in one or more decks, it needs to be banned regardless of splash damage to other (non problematic) decks.

But even if we accept the premise that Miracles is an issue (I do not, but for the sake of argument...) and needs to be dealt with, that does not equate to Top bearing all the blame. If Miracles could be brought down to fair levels by banning cards which incurred zero splash damage (CB and/or Terminus), isn't that better? That solves the (alleged) problem without the unwanted side effects.

I'd rather not get into whether or not Miracles is a problem please (it's okay if we disagree on this). But surely its better to ban cards which only hurt the decks we are actively trying to hurt!

[Zilla]

I'd rather not get into whether or not Miracles is a problem please (it's okay if we disagree on this). But surely its better to ban cards which only hurt the decks we are actively trying to hurt!
As a general rule of thumb that makes perfect sense, but in certain cases it does not. There's a parallel here to the reason why Survival is banned and not Vengevine; as long as Survival was legal, every creature they printed could potentially break it wide open. Rather than ban every creature that has a broken interaction with Survival, it makes more sense to just ban Survival itself. There's further parallel in the fact that Survival was obnoxious to play against/spectate because the Survival player is constantly looking at/shuffling their deck.

I'm not necessarily saying Top should be banned, but if anything in Miracles is, that should probably be it. Yes, there's some minor splash damage, but the number of decks that suddenly become viable without Miracles in the picture likely far outweighs the loss.

[Gui]

As a general rule of thumb that makes perfect sense, but in certain cases it does not. There's a parallel here to the reason why Survival is banned and not Vengevine; as long as Survival was legal, every creature they printed could potentially break it wide open. Rather than ban every creature that has a broken interaction with Survival, it makes more sense to just ban Survival itself. There's further parallel in the fact that Survival was obnoxious to play against/spectate because the Survival player is constantly looking at/shuffling their deck.

I'm not necessarily saying Top should be banned, but if anything in Miracles is, that should probably be it. Yes, there's some minor splash damage, but the number of decks that suddenly become viable without Miracles in the picture likely far outweighs the loss.

Also, top is the top of the poll in the top of this page. (sorry)

[GundamGuy]

But even if we accept the premise that Miracles is an issue (I do not, but for the sake of argument...) and needs to be dealt with, that does not equate to Top bearing all the blame. If Miracles could be brought down to fair levels by banning cards which incurred zero splash damage (CB and/or Terminus), isn't that better? That solves the (alleged) problem without the unwanted side effects.


I'm not sure the durdle factor alone is enough to ban a card. Wizards did unban Time Spiral after all so I'm not sure Top will get banned for that reason either.

I think banning Counterballance is wrong because Counterballance as written is just fine, it's only when it's combined with Top and cards like Brainstorm and Ponder does it do things which are busted in half.

Terminus has the same problem. On it's own it's fine, (well it's terrible design... but... ok..), the common thread here is that Top takes these cards that might not even see play on there own and elevates them to a point where they are extremely good.

[Crimhead]

As a general rule of thumb that makes perfect sense, but in certain cases it does not. There's a parallel here to the reason why Survival is banned and not Vengevine; as long as Survival was legal, every creature they printed could potentially break it wide open. Rather than ban every creature that has a broken interaction with Survival, it makes more sense to just ban Survival itself.

This is a good point. On the other hand, CB, Terminus, and EtA are "broken" by library manipulation. Keep these legal, and any quality maniplulation they print from now on is dangerous.

Cards which care what's on the top of your deck are pretty rare (clash wasn't very good), so it a question of what design space they want to keep open. Manipulation (which they are getting away from), or cards which care about order (which they almost never print to begin with).


Yes, there's some minor splash damage, but the number of decks that suddenly become viable without Miracles in the picture likely far outweighs the loss.I'm not convnced the loss of Miracles will open up the format that much. What decks will be viable which currently are not? Gobos and Zoo were hurting long before Miracles was ever big.

Miracles is a unique deck. It's stack control in a shell that is almost incapable of exerting any pressure early on; so it's committed to the control plan in a way other control decks are not. To some of us, MTG just isn't MTG without the hard control decks.

Miracles also employs synergistic cards which other decks smply can't run. Legacy is full of midrange and aggro/control decks packing "good cards". I personally wouldn't want to lose so distinct an archetype just to get more flavours of the standard fare.

I don't want to see a format where most of the top decks are powered by different combinations of the same narrow pool of quality threats and answers. If a deck runs obscure or unique cards (which do obscure or unique things), uses common cards for unique purposes, and/or attacks the game from a unique angle; that deck has character and helps distinguish Legacy. These are features which should be encouraged.


...the common thread here is that Top takes these cards that might not even see play on there own and elevates them to a point where they are extremely good.It's been pointed out that SDT barely sees play on its own. CB makes it extremely good.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

It's been pointed out that SDT barely sees play on its own. CB makes it extremely good.

You have it backwards. Top sees play outside of miracles for decks trying to smooth out their draws, who the fuck is going to play counterbalance without top, without a way to instantly manipulate your library with minimal investment.

Top makes CB really good, not the other way around, Top by itself is a decent card.

[Gui]

I'm disapointed, this thread diverged from its purpose. Why isn't people discussing how Brainstorm is what makes miracles good, instead of talking about SdT?

I don't even know if I'm joking, since I really wonder what'd happen to miracles if BS was banned. Can thread go back to this endless discussion now? :eyebrow:

[thefringthing]

Removing Miracles from the metagame won't bring back Goblins or Zoo. I think it's good for Legacy to have a dedicated control deck, but whether that deck is Miracles or not doesn't matter too much to me. Maybe a new printing could take the place of Top. Something like a one-drop artifact with T: Look at the top five cards of your library and put them back in any order (and no other abilities).

[Dice_Box]

Maybe Crystal Ball as a really bad replacement? They will never print anything like Top again.

[LeoCop 90]

I don't know what to think when people assume the death of miracles may help goblins come back.... miracles is the best matchup for goblins, and i think the only real reason to take them to a big event right now.

Anyway, I really don't want top to be banned. Why ever decks like nic fit junk imperial painter and so on should get hurt because right now the dominant deck (miracles) is played by 20% of the field and causes logistic issues? If you ban counterbalance, miracles probably dies anyway, top is played by a minimal percentage of the field and logistic issues disappear without worsening decks that are already not extremely good. I am also really irritated by matt sperling's article "don't ban top" on channelfireball because he doesn't even mention the fact that other decks besides miracles play top, that is in my view the main point to keep top in the format. Pro players usually don't know what they talk about when it comes to legacy.

[Kagehisa]

Just asking. Do you guys know Soothsaying ? A very very bad SDT for sure but if Top is banned, I'll try it to make counterbalance still work.

[jrsthethird]

I don't know what to think when people assume the death of miracles may help goblins come back.... miracles is the best matchup for goblins, and i think the only real reason to take them to a big event right now.

Because other decks meta percentage change as well. Maybe Zoo can come back without a one-mana Wrath in the format. You can't take 20% of the field away and expect the other 80% to remain the same.


Anyway, I really don't want top to be banned. Why ever decks like nic fit junk imperial painter and so on should get hurt because right now the dominant deck (miracles) is played by 20% of the field and causes logistic issues?

You just answered your own question.


Just asking. Do you guys know Soothsaying ? A very very bad SDT for sure but if Top is banned, I'll try it to make counterbalance still work.

It's better than Top. You can pitch extras to FOW!

[LeoCop 90]

I don't expect the other 80% of the field to stay the same, i'm just saying goblins get worse for sure if miracles doesn't exist anymore.

regarding "you just answered your own questions i don't even know what you mean. If it is miracles that causes logistic issues, just ban the card that has less splash damage (counterbalance). If top gets played only by painter nic fit and other fringe decks that make maybe 5% of the field altogether logistic issues disappear.

[GundamGuy]

I don't expect the other 80% of the field to stay the same, i'm just saying goblins get worse for sure if miracles doesn't exist anymore.

regarding "you just answered your own questions i don't even know what you mean. If it is miracles that causes logistic issues, just ban the card that has less splash damage (counterbalance). If top gets played only by painter nic fit and other fringe decks that make maybe 5% of the field altogether logistic issues disappear.

Why?

Miracles is a good matchup for Goblins, but the rest of the field that is designed with Miracles in mind is not. Getting rid of 1 mana instant speed wrath effects seems like it would increase the number of fair decks in the format, which seems like it would be a boon for Goblins.

Having a 95% match 1/5 of the time is way worse then have a 60% matchup 2/3's of the time...

If you are going to ban a card out of Miracles it should be Terminus.

[Crimhead]

Having a 95% match 1/5 of the time is way worse then have a 60% matchup 2/3's of the time...
What exactly do you think this 66.6% of the meta will be post Miracles? What specific decks which are 40/60 vs Goblins are suddenly going to storm through the new meta?

You'll forgive me if I sound skeptical, but this is quite the wild claim. Can you back it up?

Convince us that you have a sound, well thought out theory as to where the meta will go.

[GundamGuy]

What exactly do you think this 66.6% of the meta will be post Miracles? What specific decks which are 40/60 vs Goblins are suddenly going to storm through the new meta?

You'll forgive me if I sound skeptical, but this is quite the wild claim. Can you back it up?

Convince us that you have a sound, well thought out theory as to where the meta will go.

I think you are keying up on the wrong part's of what I am saying.

My point is entirely that removing one good matchup is actually sometimes better for a deck, because you don't only play that one good matchup all the time.

What decks do I think would start showing up more. Junk, Esper Stoneblade, Mavrick, Knight of the reliquary.dec, Basically non-tempo creature decks, and control archatypes that have been squeezed out by Miracles. It's a very long list.

[KobeBryan]

They dont' need to ban a card

They just need to nerf the miracles trigger a bit. You can't cast no sorcery speed card on my turn

[Raystar]

They dont' need to ban a card

They just need to nerf the miracles trigger a bit. You can't cast no sorcery speed card on my turn

Amen

[CorwinB]

They dont' need to ban a card

They just need to nerf the miracles trigger a bit. You can't cast no sorcery speed card on my turn

Interesting idea... Is there a precedent to that ? Changing a whole rule/keyword (and not a single card) for balance reasons ?

[Quasim0ff]

Interesting idea... Is there a precedent to that ? Changing a whole rule/keyword (and not a single card) for balance reasons ?

No, they try to stay away from Errata.

As in, they won't do that.

[sjmcc13]

Interesting idea... Is there a precedent to that ? Changing a whole rule/keyword (and not a single card) for balance reasons ?

Artifacts turning off.
Interrupts to Instants
Mana burn
might be something else.

[Tylert]

Artifacts turning off.
Interrupts to Instants
Mana burn
might be something else.

Damage in the stack?

[Quasim0ff]

Artifacts turning off.
Interrupts to Instants
Mana burn
might be something else.

This is not the same as changing the miracle mechanic.

[jrsthethird]

To be fair, they did change the Continuous Artifact mechanic, and also changed removed the Interrupt mechanic. Depends how loosely you use the word mechanic.

[GundamGuy]

To be fair, they did change the Continuous Artifact mechanic, and also changed removed the Interrupt mechanic. Depends how loosely you use the word mechanic.

To be fair, back when they made those changes, the idea of a mechanic was pretty undeveloped and most of these changes were not functional in nature.

Interrupt to Instant was before me so I don't know much about that change, but damage not on the stack, and the great creature type changes made cards work functionally different.

I'm not sure they will make a change to a specifc keyword mechanic though.

It's also debateable , because of the exact word choice used, that Miracle works exactly how Wizards intended.

[rufus]

...
Interrupt to Instant was before me so I don't know much about that change, but damage not on the stack, and the great creature type changes made cards work functionally different.
...

Interrupts are somewhere between what instants and mana sources are today. I think they could - effectively - recreate interrupts with text like:



Interrupt (as long as this is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities unless those spells are interrupts or those abilities are mana abilities.)


Generally interrupts were things that manipulated other spells (e.g. Counterspell, Lifelace, Sleight of Mind or Fork) and things that could produce mana like Llanowar Elves, Dark Ritual and even Ley Druid.

In the transition they had wierd stuff like uncounterable dark rituals, but I don't think there's that much effective difference between the 4E interrupt cards and how those cards work today.

[Dice_Box]

Yea, the Mirage Dark Rit has the line "Mana Source" printed on it. Makes me glad I did not play though that error. (Spelling mistake intended.)

[tescrin]

This is not the same as changing the miracle mechanic.

Not really, there are artifacts that ceased to function as intended due to power level; they picked and chose which artifacts would stay tapable when they changed things. In other words, they didn't respect the rule-changes on all artifacts the same; functionally changing the game and the way the cards worked.
E.G. Howling Mine vs. Winter Orb

Damage not using the stack is huge when you consider how many cards were absolute power-houses that were reduced to trashy-garbage-trash. Even in the current meta; imagine a guy who can get his damage on the stack against someone with a Jitte, then sac himself; killing the guy, giving no Jitte Counters, and doing whatever his sacrifice do-dad does.

You want to talk about changing the entire way a game works because you have stupid players; BOOM, perfect example. (That said; Miracles isn't oppressive here and has largely been driven out. Though I can't say for why. It may be like Sneakshow where it's unfun enough to play they just don't do it lol)


EDIT: as an aside; it'd take a very different wording to cast it at sorcery speed; because technically you cast it at the end of your draw step IIRC, due to when the trigger resolves (under normal conditions); making it instant speed.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Impulse was eratta'ed.

From my phone. I do my best, dammit!

[rufus]

Not really, there are artifacts that ceased to function as intended due to power level; they picked and chose which artifacts would stay tapable when they changed things. In other words, they didn't respect the rule-changes on all artifacts the same; functionally changing the game and the way the cards worked.
E.G. Howling Mine vs. Winter Orb
...

Huh, I hadn't noticed that. Static Orb seems like a better comparison. Are there other artifacts that didn't get the 'as long as ~ is untapped' template?

[simdude]

I feel like the best comparison example for "changing" a mechanic was when Indestructible was made a keyword.

Before the M14 rules change an effect like a fused Turn // Burn wouldn't have destroyed a creature because even when changing the card's properties via Turn it still would have been indestructible to Burn but after the changes (likely made to power down the gods of Theros) it works as most players expected it would, in that the creature loses indestructibility from Turn and would be killed by Burn.

The M14 rules changes also changed the legend rule which had obvious power level implications (although in fairness they were almost uniformly power level increases).

It wouldn't be unprecedented in the recent era to functionally change a keyword but it would be something they'd likely try to avoid at all costs.

My opinion on it is that it always bothered me that you could Miracle a sorcery at instant speed but giving a sorcery flashback at instant speed doesn't allow you to instantly cast it. Yes, I get why in the complex power balancing and rules management there are good reasons for this but it still always seemed disjointed in my brain given they were mechanics in the same block and it happened to coincide to when I returned to game after like 8 years and was re-learning all new rules anyway.

[jrsthethird]

Impulse was eratta'ed.

From my phone. I do my best, dammit!

And Walking Atlas.

The only time they issue functional errata is to make a card or cards function more intuitively. Damage on the stack makes no sense from a realistic standpoint. I think the only exception is the removal of the Interrupt type, which coincided with the elimination of batches and the creation of the stack (along with the damage rule). The stack is a simpler, more intuitive way to work than the Instant batch vs. Interrupt batch system prior, so overall it was still for he overall simplicity of the game.

Impulse as printed makes no sense. Look at top 4, pick one, and shuffle; or look at top 4, pick one, and bottom the rest. Having both instructions is odd and they went with what they intended. Atlas is just stupid.

If they stuck with original printings as final, we'd all be wondering how the hell we actually cast Cyclopean Tomb.

[rufus]

And Walking Atlas.

Huh? What did they change on that card?




If they stuck with original printings as final, we'd all be wondering how the hell we actually cast Cyclopean Tomb.

They originally banned Orcish Oriflamme because of the mana cost misprint in alpha made it too powerful .. or something. With the new world order maybe they should do a functional reprint of Alpha Orcish Artillery.

[Zombie]

Damage not using the stack is huge when you consider how many cards were absolute power-houses that were reduced to trashy-garbage-trash. Even in the current meta; imagine a guy who can get his damage on the stack against someone with a Jitte, then sac himself; killing the guy, giving no Jitte Counters, and doing whatever his sacrifice do-dad does.

RIP
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=109733&type=card
2006-2010

One of the most fun Magic cards ever printed.



Huh? What did they change on that card?


They made it an artifact.

[swoop]

Momentary blink makes me wet just looking at him. Oh Lord.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[H]

Not really, there are artifacts that ceased to function as intended due to power level; they picked and chose which artifacts would stay tapable when they changed things. In other words, they didn't respect the rule-changes on all artifacts the same; functionally changing the game and the way the cards worked.
E.G. Howling Mine vs. Winter Orb


Huh, I hadn't noticed that. Static Orb seems like a better comparison. Are there other artifacts that didn't get the 'as long as ~ is untapped' template?

I've discussed this at length elsewhere, but Winter Orb was given the same errata that Howling Mine was given when the rule first changed. It was only later that Wizards decided that Howling Mine and Static Orb could kept there errata, while it was removed from Winter Orb under the rather spurious reasoning that "it was never printed with that errata, so it should be removed." As was point out above, Impulse had errata for something like 8 years before it was ever reprinted with it's errata, so their reasoning for removing it from Winter Orb is disingenuous at best.

[GundamGuy]

EDIT: as an aside; it'd take a very different wording to cast it at sorcery speed; because technically you cast it at the end of your draw step IIRC, due to when the trigger resolves (under normal conditions); making it instant speed.

This is a super good point.

If you wanted miracles to only be castable with normal timing restrictions, it would introduce a whole lot more headaches...

[jrsthethird]

This is a super good point.

If you wanted miracles to only be castable with normal timing restrictions, it would introduce a whole lot more headaches...

Not that hard:

If this is the first card you draw in a turn, you may exile it instead. If you do, you may cast this card this turn for it's Miracle cost.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Not that hard:

If this is the first card you draw in a turn, you may exile it instead. If you do, you may cast this card this turn for it's Miracle cost.
Yes! I like this a lot. Way more intuitive. I mean, argue about it all you want, but instant speed mass removal for only one mana is a ridiculous notion. The idea that it made it through R&D makes me think that everyone in that dept. just started eating paint chips one day and couldn't stop.

From my phone. I do my best, dammit!

[Crimhead]

For everyone saying that Miracles is anything short of dominant... it has like twice as many tops as any other deck, see TCdecks

http://tcdecks.net/metagame.php?form...&fecha=2015-10
http://tcdecks.net/metagame.php?form...&fecha=2015-11

You are exaggerating the gap.
Your reserch is shallow - in the previous month Miracles was not even the top deck.
Arguments of proportions and representation aside, having twice as many tops as the other tier decks does not in and of itself mean the deck is dominant! This description would be equally true of a meta with only three tier decks (25%, 25%, & 50%) as it would be of a meta with four tier decks (20%, 20%, 20%, & 40%), or a meta with nineteen tier decks (18 x 5% & 1x 10%)! I'd argue the fist two metas has an oppressively OP deck, where the second merely has a best deck. Miracles, in the current meta, is some where in between.

Second I disagree with your assessment that by 2012 control was gone and Aggro/control (is that what we are calling Tempo now...?) decks were in control. Control decks still existed.Aggro/control is a broad termfor any deck with too much disruption to be classed as aggro, but too many fast threats to be classed as control. Tempo decks, along with some midrange (Maverick,etc),tend to be on the aggro end of the spectrum, while other midrange decks are on the control end (BUG, Esper-Blade, Dead Guy, etc). By 2012, pure aggro decks and pure control decks were getting fringier and fringier, while aggro control (midrange and tempo) took most of the meta. It was a dark time.


Control used to have to choose between having a good matchup against combo, or a good matchup against agro. You would then use the sideboard to try and shore up the other matchup. Nowadays Miracles is good against both preboard, and can use the sideboard to shore up specific weaknesses rather than improving whole archetype matchups. The ability to have the tools to beat almost everything has always been the control player's dream, and it has been largely achieved in Miracles.The problem here is that your model is out of date. The Aggro>>Control>>Combo meta is long gone. Most fair decks are now either Midrange or Tempo.


The only truly bad matchups for the deck are fringe decks that rarely make it to the later rounds of a tournament.Miracles has poor MUs against Team America, Thresh, Patriot Blade, Shardless, and r/g Lands, Aggro Loam, and Infect. I can't imagine its good against Merfolk either.


Countertop decks are prison, not control.The Counter-Top combo itself is certainly prison-esque. But unlike a typical prison piece like Chalice or a Sphere, CB + Top is reaction based, which makes it a little more akin to playing actual counterspells. Beyond that, the deck packs more counter-magic, draw spells, S2P, sweepers, and fat flyers to finish the job.

This sounds an awful lot like a classic U/W control deck to me! Yeah, 20_counterspell.dec is dead, but this is close.


Hard, one-wincon control is dead as an archetype just because of creature power creep, but there are decks that are closer to in than Miracles. I've played esper thopters and it's pretty close. FWIW, that deck crushed Miracles.But Esper Thopters is hardly a tier one deck! Miracles is the only tier one deck even resembling classic control. Stoneblade, BUG "Control" or D&T might feel like a control deck if you are playing Delver, Combo, or Aggro Loam. But when I'm sitting on Lands and facing early game Goyfs or Batterskulls, you'll understand that it doesn't feel much like control vs control! Miracles is my only (tier) non-mirror control match.

[maharis]

You are exaggerating the gap.

Barely.


Your reserch is shallow - in the previous month Miracles was not even the top deck.

Actually, I posted the previous month to point out that in the DTT era, there were more "top decks."



Arguments of proportions and representation aside, having twice as many tops as the other tier decks does not in and of itself mean the deck is dominant! This description would be equally true of a meta with only three tier decks (25%, 25%, & 50%) as it would be of a meta with four tier decks (20%, 20%, 20%, & 40%), or a meta with nineteen tier decks (18 x 5% & 1x 10%)! I'd argue the fist two metas has an oppressively OP deck, where the second merely has a best deck. Miracles, in the current meta, is some where in between.


Legacy is constrained by the non-portability of decks. I played in a 7 round tournament with Grixis against Tezzeret, Omni, Shardless, Dragon Stompy, High Tide, Hypergenesis, and Painter. You'd never know that five of those decks were in the tournament based on what finished at the top. The tier 1 decks are clear enough in the results.


Miracles has poor MUs against Team America, Thresh, Patriot Blade, Shardless, and r/g Lands, Aggro Loam, and Infect. I can't imagine its good against Merfolk either.

Many Miracles pilots say the supposed power of Shardless in the matchup is overblown, and I can definitely say having played TA vs. Miracles that just having Abrupt Decay doesn't mean you're all set. At worst what are we talking about... 40-45% for Miracles? That's pretty close to even.


The Counter-Top combo itself is certainly prison-esque. But unlike a typical prison piece like Chalice or a Sphere, CB + Top is reaction based, which makes it a little more akin to playing actual counterspells. Beyond that, the deck packs more counter-magic, draw spells, S2P, sweepers, and fat flyers to finish the job.

This sounds an awful lot like a classic U/W control deck to me! Yeah, 20_counterspell.dec is dead, but this is close.

Some of this is semantics, but the fact remains that CB-top is by far the most powerful prison strategy in Legacy today. One-sided, low opportunity cost.... So much better than CotV.


But Esper Thopters is hardly a tier one deck!

Tell me about it :cry:


Miracles is the only tier one deck even resembling classic control. Stoneblade, BUG "Control" or D&T might feel like a control deck if you are playing Delver, Combo, or Aggro Loam. But when I'm sitting on Lands and facing early game Goyfs or Batterskulls, you'll understand that it doesn't feel much like control vs control! Miracles is my only (tier) non-mirror control match.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't give it a free pass to stick around. Honestly, I'm somewhat on the fence about whether or not it really needs a nerf, but there are two things that have me fighting against counterbalance since we're having the discussion anyway:

1) CB-top's raw power means it's always one printing away from being obnoxious (in this case the Miracle mechanic pushed it way over the top). The interaction is problematic from a fun and logistical perspective and when it dominates the metagame we have problems.

2) Banning Top guts a lot of interesting tier 2 strategies that don't abuse it. It also sends CB to the scrapheap anyway, so just cut the complementary card and let the format breathe.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

...having twice as many tops as the other tier decks does not in and of itself mean...
All decks have same amount of tops, maybe Doomsday Tendrils plays just one , but other than that, SDt is always played in a set.

[TheFlyinGutchman]

All decks have same amount of tops, maybe Doomsday Tendrils plays just one , but other than that, SDt is always played in a set.
This is either an excellent troll, or a mix up of terminology. "Twice as many tops" seems to have referred to topping tournaments. I.e. like top 8, not referring to SDT.

[Dice_Box]

All decks have same amount of tops, maybe Doomsday Tendrils plays just one , but other than that, SDt is always played in a set.

Painter plays 2 or 3, Nic Fit plays 1 to 3, Pox plays 1 or 2, Thopers play 2...

[Philipp2293]

Also, Doomsday plays 4 tops, since it's a crucial part for many piles, not to mention the set-up phase.

[tescrin]

I just don't see why we'd ever ban Top out of the Counter-top package. Counterbalance wouldn't likely be seeing any play just from Opt/Brainstorm/etc.. It's just too unreliable, vulnerable to discard, etc..

I think the discussion should just be Counterbalance or Terminus *IF* you want a ban. I really would hate to see the random damage that comes from losing Top when it's such a fun card to use. I get it; you'll tell me to play Brainstorm.. but come on. Let me play *some* non-blue decks *sometimes* while still enjoying myself and not just going "Blind Fetch to reduce minimal probability. Drew a fetch? Blind fetch to reduce.." ad nausium while I draw nothing but lands.

I don't think it's been mentioned the nice synergy with Bob, the fact that Nonblue has a hard time with finding enough 1-drops, or the fact that Sylvan Library costs you 4 life to get to card parity. I really can't see why we'd talk about Banning top when it's only a time waster with Miracles or bad players (and I think many would argue that when it's a time waster in miracles it's still bad players.)

[Fatal]

Agreed with Tescrin,

Top is probably only playable CQ off-color.

Anyway I found solution to meta -> Better Nic Fit which crush Miracles :-)

[Crimhead]

Many Miracles pilots say the supposed power of Shardless in the matchup is overblown, and I can definitely say having played TA vs. Miracles that just having Abrupt Decay doesn't mean you're all set. At worst what are we talking about... 40-45% for Miracles? That's pretty close to even.60/40 is nowhere close to even.

Regardless, I never said it was a blowout - I said it was unfavourable. Miracles has many unfavourable MUs among the competitive decks which regularly place (I listed them in the post you've quoted). This is evidently enough to keep Miracles down to ~15% of the meta.




I don't disagree, but that doesn't give it a free pass to stick around.Nothing should ever get a free pass!

But I believe the more unique a deck is, the bigger a share of the meta it can have before we call it "too much".
Imagine Thresh were sitting at 15-20%. If this were the only competitive tempo deck, that would not be not so bad because it would be contributing a unique element to the meta, and hurting that deck would hurt an entire play-style. On the other hand, if Team America, Patriot Delver, and U/R Delver were also sitting at 5-10% each, the format would stink of too much tempo and reigning in RUG would make a lot of sense.

Similarly my tolerance for Miracles' share of the meta is increased by the fact that it's literally the only classic style control deck which is competitive. If there were other such control decks - especially other counter-top variants - in the top tier, I would tolerate less.



....the fact remains that CB-top is by far the most powerful prison strategy in Legacy today. One-sided, low opportunity cost.... So much better than CotV.This is not a good metric for what is or is not too powerful. Every single deck in the DTB section puts up better numbers than CotV prison. It's okay for the tier one decks to be more powerful than the tier two decks!



CB-top's raw power means it's always one printing away from being obnoxious (in this case the Miracle mechanic pushed it way over the top). The interaction is problematic from a fun and logistical perspective and when it dominates the metagame we have problems.Again, I don't consider 15% to be dominating the field - especially with so many poor MUs among the top decks.

As for fun & logistics, in Modern, these concerns seem to trump competitive integrity. I'm personally very thankful that in Legacy it is the other way around!

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Painter plays 2 or 3, Nic Fit plays 1 to 3, Pox plays 1 or 2, Thopers play 2...


Also, Doomsday plays 4 tops, since it's a crucial part for many piles, not to mention the set-up phase.

Essentially we are doing mental gymnastics to justify not banning top. Terminus and Counterbalance aren't broken cards, the synergies with top however are. Top is a strong card, likely one that should never have been printed, filling up the banlist with a bunch of objectively mediocre cards is silly.

Which isn't to say I think top should be banned, but let's be real, top is the problem card, it's what enabling those cards to function. It's a card that has two broken interactions already and whose to say they aren't going to make more. We can say almost certainly, they will not be making more "top-esque" cards that break counterbalance or terminus.

[iatee]

Top doesn't break the miracle-mechanic, Brainstorm does. Controlling your draws is great, but if you open with 6 mana cards in your hand and have them stuck there all game, you're gonna lose a lot. That's the drawback to the mechanic, that's why nobody else plays miracles effects, even a one-of Thunderous Wrath isn't worth the risk for Burn.

[Dice_Box]

Essentially we are doing mental gymnastics to justify not banning top.No, I don't think so. You can take other cards away and leave Top in for Painter and the like without issue.

Banning something if you wanted to sting just Miracles can be done, collateral damage is unnecessary.

[AznSeal]

As an Elves player, I hate Miracles but I don't think Miracles is as oppressive as people are making it out to be. It's basically a 50-50 deck and the tournament data support it. I don't think being "boring" should be a criteria to ban something. Hell, i think burn is boring af.

[Crimhead]

Terminus and Counterbalance aren't broken cards, the synergies with top however are...

...but let's be real, top is the problem card, it's what enabling those cards to function. It's a card that has two broken interactions already and whose to say they aren't going to make more.
Are these interactions really "broken"? Does a 15% meta share constitute a deck being objectively out of hand and running amok?

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

[Chatto]

Just ban Counterbalance, I really loath that card. Top and Brainstorm are fine by me, and I don't really care about Entreat the Angels: it's Counterbalance I really really really really loath.

[Dice_Box]

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.
I am not sure they would. Because while Jund is a pain to play against, it's not as irritating as Miracles is. I think most of the hate on the deck has to do with the feel of the deck and from how much it sucks to watch play.

If Brainstorm is protected for being the card everyone loves then Counterbalance is marked as the card everyone hates. What happens to it though is not for me to decide but I can understand the issue. It's less about % played and more about the eye roll factor when you realise someone is playing it. The decks popularity is just compounding that eye roll factor.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Are these interactions really "broken"? Does a 15% meta share constitute a deck being objectively out of hand and running amok?

This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

I don't think you read my post, yes I said they are broken but legacy is made up of many broken spells and interactions, turn 1 20/20 indestructible that you can make every turn, Lion's Eye Diamond + Infernal Tutor, Show & Tell, etc, Top + Counterbalance/Terminus is just another one in the list of dumb broken things you can do.

[jrsthethird]

Ban Plains. Make them play 4 Tundra.

[GundamGuy]

As an Elves player, I hate Miracles but I don't think Miracles is as oppressive as people are making it out to be. It's basically a 50-50 deck and the tournament data support it. I don't think being "boring" should be a criteria to ban something. Hell, i think burn is boring af.

A deck that's got a 50% chance of winning almost every time you sit down to play is actually mathematically pretty good.



This is the heart of the issue, and something we likely will just have to disagree on. But for the sake of consistency, I hope anybody wanting a Miracles staple banned would also want a ban if a deck like Jund ever hits a meta share that high again.

That's not likely to happen because Jund can't cover all the angles like Miracles can. Miracles is pretty good in almost every meta (minus a meta dominated by 12-posts), Jund is easier to meta game around.

[maharis]

Miracles has many unfavourable MUs among the competitive decks which regularly place (I listed them in the post you've quoted). This is evidently enough to keep Miracles down to ~15% of the meta.

Miracles is 15% of the meta, which is a TON given the legacy cardpool and card availability. People are switching to Miracles for a better chance at doing well in tournaments. The idea that it has tons of natural predators is simply wrong. Miracles tops tournaments at a rate far exceeding any other deck for a reason: it is naturally powerful and lacks truly lopsided matchups (12 post notwithstanding).


Similarly my tolerance for Miracles' share of the meta is increased by the fact that it's literally the only classic style control deck which is competitive. If there were other such control decks - especially other counter-top variants - in the top tier, I would tolerate less.

It is the only one of these decks because it is so good. Other control decks would pop up if Miracles was broken up a bit.


This is not a good metric for what is or is not too powerful. Every single deck in the DTB section puts up better numbers than CotV prison. It's okay for the tier one decks to be more powerful than the tier two decks!

The point is that Chalice is an acceptable power level for this kind of effect. It requires deckbuilding considerations and doesn't naturally protect itself.


As for fun & logistics, in Modern, these concerns seem to trump competitive integrity. I'm personally very thankful that in Legacy it is the other way around!

Actually, the bans of Mental Misstep in Legacy and Chalice of the Void in Vintage show that Wizards will occasionally take steps to remove cards because they are unfun to play against, even in the big boy formats. And the bannings of Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time indicate that the "enabler" is not always the first to go. (Delve is nowhere near broken in formats with limited fetching and cantripping).

[btm10]

A deck that's got a 50% chance of winning almost every time you sit down to play is actually mathematically pretty good.


RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad was released and no one has complained. Also, most decks have an average match win rate of about 50%, with deficits in one area being made up for by excess in another. Lands and Enchantress are probably the most extreme examples of this phenomenon.


Also, as if on cue, 12 distinct archetypes in the first "SCG Classic" Top 16, only one is Miracles (http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=12/13/2015&end_date=12/13/2015&event_ID=36&city=las+vegas&limit=100).

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Also, as if on cue, 12 distinct archetypes in the first "SCG Classic" Top 16, only one is Miracles... (http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=12/13/2015&end_date=12/13/2015&event_ID=36&city=las+vegas&limit=100)
...the others are Shlongless Slutai, Terror Delver, Slutless Grizzlies and Team Denver.
fuck, I hate this nomenclature.

[rufus]

...the others are Shlongless Slutai, Terror Delver, Slutless Grizzlies and Team Denver.
fuck, I hate this nomenclature.

Preach it!

[barcode]

...the others are Shlongless Slutai, Terror Delver, Slutless Grizzlies and Team Denver.
fuck, I hate this nomenclature.

It's okay, you'll live.

[GundamGuy]

RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad was released and no one has complained. Also, most decks have an average match win rate of about 50%, with deficits in one area being made up for by excess in another. Lands and Enchantress are probably the most extreme examples of this phenomenon.


Also, as if on cue, 12 distinct archetypes in the first "SCG Classic" Top 16, only one is Miracles (http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=12/13/2015&end_date=12/13/2015&event_ID=36&city=las+vegas&limit=100).

Bolded is the key point I'm trying to get accross.

Any deck that's a top deck is likely to have a better then 50% match win rate. My point is that miracles doesn't have as many excessively good matches or excessively bad matches (and the ones it has are not widely played because they aren't very viable in the meta) . I'd rather have Miracles against a random matchup each round, then a deck which has a larger varriation in good vs bad matchups.

Also I disagree that RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad. There have been periods during that time where RUG was pushed to the fringes and other Delver decks were better, including a period earlier this year when Treasure Cruse was legal.

[Crimhead]

The point is that Chalice is an acceptable power level for this kind of effect. It requires deckbuilding considerations and doesn't naturally protect itself.Let me get this straight. The "acceptable power level" of a prison lock piece is too weak to actually support a tier one prison strategy in the current environment? This is your position?

Basically you are saying Legacy should not have a tier one prison deck, and you want WotC to invoke the banhammer in order to enforce this? I guess we just have very different ideas as to what makes a good format and how the banned list should be used.


Actually, the bans of Mental Misstep in Legacy and Chalice of the Void in Vintage show that Wizards will occasionally take steps to remove cards because they are unfun to play against, even in the big boy formats.When MM was banned the format was overrun with u/w midrange control (mostly Blade and NO Bant). That was an oppressive meta! Also Snappy was due to hit the scene, which would have unleashed an absolute shit-storm into what was already an extremely narrow meta.

Vintage MUD was also ridiculous! I think something like 25% of the meta! Comparing Miracles to these seems silly to me. These were very oppressive metas- nothing like the openness we have in Legacy today (with regards to archetypes - lets not rehash the cantrip debate please).

WotC are not always clear (nor necessarily even honest) about their motivations and thought processes. so maybe you are right. But when I look at bannings in Vintage and Legacy (especially compared to Modern), it seems to me that eternal formats are intended for thick-skinned players who have acquired a taste for them. These are the formats where it is (seemingly) okay for the best decks to be combo, control, or even prison - despite how contentious and hated these decks can sometimes be.


Miracles is 15% of the meta, which is a TON given the legacy cardpool and card availability.Most of that cardpool is unplayable. Considering instead the number of tier one decks, 15% is more modest. Let's look at it numerically:

If you enter a large event with 13 or 14 rounds, you can expect to see Miracles, on average, in just 2 of those 13 or 14 matches. If you happen to make top 8, on average roughly one of the seven other finalists will be playing Miracles; and you are less than 50% likely to actually play them.

I just don't see how that is oppressive. Im-pressive, but not o-ppressive. Those Miracles matches will not dominate your play experience (unless emotionally), and should not be dominating your deck selection process.


The idea that it has tons of natural predators is simply wrong...
...it is naturally powerful and lacks truly lopsided matchups (12 post notwithstanding).Miracles doesn't have any (tier one) lop-sided matches, but having a high number of moderately unfavorable MUs can be just as bad.


It is the only one of these decks because it is so good. Other control decks would pop up if Miracles was broken up a bit.Most likely only midrange "control" decks would pop up. There is no reason to believe another pure control deck will suddenly materialize (though if you have a theory I'm interested).

Fair decks exist on a continuum of aggro/control, depending on their potential for fast threats vs disruption. Losing Miracles could shift this whole spectrum towards the aggro end as the best control decks (besides Lands) would all be midrange. Legacy has been depolarizing for some time now, with aggro decks and control decks both losing ground to tempo and midrange aggro/control decks (mostly good-stuff). I feel that also having fair decks which are more extreme one way or another is invaluable for format variety,

I get the impression you don't care much if Legacy has a tier one hard control deck or not. That's cool, but it illustrates the difference in our ideals for the banned list. You want the ban list to treat prison decks more harshly, while I want (if anything) the banned list to be more lenient on decks of a under-represented play style (in this case, hard control/prison). I don't imagine we will change each-other's minds, and it's okay if we disagree on what is a rather subjective point.

[GundamGuy]

Miracles doesn't have any (tier one) lop-sided matches, but having a high number of moderately unfavorable MUs can be just as bad.



What are miracles "high number" of "moderately unfavorable" match-ups?

Also



Let me get this straight. The "acceptable power level" of a prison lock piece is too weak to actually support a tier one prison strategy in the current environment? This is your position?


is a total strawman argument.



I get the impression you don't care much if Legacy has a tier one hard control deck or not.


Legacy would have a tier one control deck if miracles were banned tomorrow. Control will have no problems assembling a solid control list without any or all of the following... top/counterbalance/terminus Legacy has way to many great control cards for the banning of any of those to prevent the existence of control.

[maharis]

Let me get this straight. The "acceptable power level" of a prison lock piece is too weak to actually support a tier one prison strategy in the current environment? This is your position?

Basically you are saying Legacy should not have a tier one prison deck, and you want WotC to invoke the banhammer in order to enforce this? I guess we just have very different ideas as to what makes a good format and how the banned list should be used.

Not at all. Just because I think Counterbalance is overpowered does not mean I think that prison/control should be banned out of existence. I simply think that Countertop is a negative for the format. It's compact, one-sided, synergistic with the best consistency engine in Legacy, and has only a narrow range of answers such that games against it simply boil down to "Didn't draw my sideboard hate, guess I lose." Terminus may be the reason it's over the top right now, but we're always just one printing away from the next card like that anyway.

Other prison cards are powerful, but ask you to sacrifice some of your own consistency in order to unlock their power. That actually means that prison becomes one of the most diverse, interactive archetypes in the format if you look at non-countertop decks. For example, a key card in both Lands and D&T is Rishadan Port. Each deck has a different way of overcoming the self-2-for-1 that Port really is (tap two of your lands to tap one of theirs): Lands has exploration/diamond, while D&T has Aether Vial. Or Chalice, which is powered out by sol lands or Mox Diamond, requires you to take one-drops out of your own deck (or reduce them to a minimum), and ends up yielding decks from MUD to Loam to Tezzeret.

That all being said, I'm not even ready to die on the hill that Miracles needs banned immediately. However, I think it's obvious that it is the best deck, and that it comes with logistical issues that impact tournaments. Counterbalance is the reason for both of these facts, which are irrefutable.


When MM was banned the format was overrun with u/w midrange control (mostly Blade and NO Bant). That was an oppressive meta! Also Snappy was due to hit the scene, which would have unleashed an absolute shit-storm into what was already an extremely narrow meta.

I guess this is true, I can't find data to prove or disprove otherwise.


Vintage MUD was also ridiculous! I think something like 25% of the meta! Comparing Miracles to these seems silly to me. These were very oppressive metas- nothing like the openness we have in Legacy today (with regards to archetypes - lets not rehash the cantrip debate please).

When Chalice was banned, So Many Insane Plays did a really interesting podcast about the "dominance" of MUD.

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-podcast-episode-49-october-2015-banned-restricted-list-update/


Most of that cardpool is unplayable. Considering instead the number of tier one decks, 15% is more modest. Let's look at it numerically:

If you enter a large event with 13 or 14 rounds, you can expect to see Miracles, on average, in just 2 of those 13 or 14 matches. If you happen to make top 8, on average roughly one of the seven other finalists will be playing Miracles; and you are less than 50% likely to actually play them.

I just don't see how that is oppressive. Im-pressive, but not o-ppressive. Those Miracles matches will not dominate your play experience (unless emotionally), and should not be dominating your deck selection process.

Slightly misleading. If you enter a tournament expecting to win, your chances of facing the top decks go up round by round. Miracles is unquestionably the top deck, therefore you need to consider the likelihood of facing it. Again, this is if your goal is to win and not just have fun, which is a smaller portion of Legacy players than other formats.



Most likely only midrange "control" decks would pop up. There is no reason to believe another pure control deck will suddenly materialize (though if you have a theory I'm interested).

Miracles already plays Monastery Mentor, Snapcaster Mage and Vendilion Clique, aggressive, disruptive, midrangy creatures.




I get the impression you don't care much if Legacy has a tier one hard control deck or not.

You're right. No deck deserves to be tier 1. However, in Legacy, the chance of a deck archetype being completely unviable are low. There will always be hard control decks in Legacy as long as Force, Counterspell, Brainstorm, STP, and any number of other cards are legal.



That's cool, but it illustrates the difference in our ideals for the banned list. You want the ban list to treat prison decks more harshly,
Nope.



while I want (if anything) the banned list to be more lenient on decks of a under-represented play style (in this case, hard control/prison).

Miracles is the most played deck in Legacy, it is not under-represented.



I don't imagine we will change each-other's minds, and it's okay if we disagree on what is a rather subjective point.

well, you're misrepresenting my point, but I do see that we are likely to talk past each other. Interesting debate though.

[btm10]

Bolded is the key point I'm trying to get accross.

Any deck that's a top deck is likely to have a better then 50% match win rate. My point is that miracles doesn't have as many excessively good matches or excessively bad matches (and the ones it has are not widely played because they aren't very viable in the meta).

Again, RUG (just to name one example) doesn't have any horrible matchups. Even something like Dragon Stompy - which is basically a hate deck for the Delver macro-archetype - isn't an unwinnable matchup, even putting aside the number of times it just loses to itself. Shardless BUG has unfavorable matchups against combo but makes up for that by having favorable matchups against aggro, tempo, and control decks while having only slightly favorable matchups against other midrange decks.



Also I disagree that RUG Delver has been 50% vs. the format since Innistrad. There have been periods during that time where RUG was pushed to the fringes and other Delver decks were better, including a period earlier this year when Treasure Cruse was legal.

You mean when they cut Nimble Mongoose for Kird Ape and put two people in the top 8 of a fifteen round tournament (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/258705#online)?

[GundamGuy]

Again, RUG (just to name one example) doesn't have any horrible matchups.


You mean when they cut Nimble Mongoose for Kird Ape and put two people in the top 8 of a fifteen round tournament (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/258705#online)?

This depends on how you define "horrible." RUG does have some bad match-ups... Jund for example. I think Grixis Control was solid vs RUG delver, and I imagine that RUG Delver players don't like sitting down across from MUD, or 8 Tezz (Since both can drop an early CotV and then go above your curve...). Again the point I'm making though isn't that there is only one deck to beat, and that all the other deck to beats actually have really bad match-ups (no duh) (They wouldn't be decks to beat if they weren't above the curve vs the field.)... It's that the highs and lows are higher and lower with decks that aren't Miracles.

Also, are you really pointing to two people who won with an an unconventional RUG build as "RUG Delver" being dominate? Really? Also the period I'm talking about is when people figured out to cut the G and just play UR Delver since it was better (when you could play treasure cruse...) but you know whatever.

Also about a year and a half ago... maybe 2, Jund was keeping RUG delver in check pretty well. (This was why Jund and Shardless were popular)

I am not going to deny that RUG Delver has had a long period of success (with ups and downs...), but I am going to again point out that it's highs are higher and it's lows are lower.

[Crimhead]

Again, RUG (just to name one example) doesn't have any horrible matchups. l play exclusively Lands, and Thresh is arguably better than a bye because the improved tie breakers actually off-set those rare occasions when Lands loses this MU. If I'm exaggerating it's only slightly. Either way, this is a horrendous match for RUG.

Honestly I don't understand the appeal to having skewed MUs vs even MUs. What's important is your average win-rate, assuming that accounts accurately for you probability of running into each of your possible matches.


I do see that we are likely to talk past each other. Interesting debate though.I think we are doing well!

Its not my intent to misrepresent you, nor talk past you, and I see I was a bit off the mark on a point or two. I'm running to work, but will post later.

[GundamGuy]

l play exclusively Lands, and Thresh is arguably better than a bye because the improved tie breakers actually off-set those rare occasions when Lands loses this MU. If I'm exaggerating it's only slightly. Either way, this is a horrendous match for RUG.

Honestly I don't understand the appeal to having skewed MUs vs even MUs.What's important is your average win-rate, assuming that accounts accurately for you probability of running into each of your possible matches.

I think we are doing well!

Its not my intent to misrepresent you, nor talk past you, and I see I was a bit off the mark on a point or two. I'm running to work, but will post later.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the bolded part, so I am going to assume you mean what I'm talking about.

What it comes down to is that a deck that you can't really meta game against (because at worst it's pretty close to 50/50 against anything you throw at it...), and a deck that you can actually metagame against are very different beasts.

What I am trying to explain is why the philosophy of just waiting for the metagame to adapt might actually just have you waiting forever.

[thefringthing]

Ban Sensei's Divining Top, unban Mana Drain. BOOM! Problem solved.

You don't get to lock your opponent out of the game on turn two, but you do get your Jace on turn three.

[barcode]

Ban Sensei's Divining Top, unban Mana Drain. BOOM! Problem solved.

You don't get to lock your opponent out of the game on turn two, but you do get your Jace on turn three.

As a Vintage player that already owns 4 Mana Drains: I approve of this message.

[Dice_Box]

Can we unban Workshops while we are at it to make a rival control/prison deck?

[Stevestamopz]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-legacy-ban-list-what-should-change/

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

<3 u Caleb

[CabalTherapy]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-legacy-ban-list-what-should-change/

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

<3 u Caleb

Worst "article" ever. Caleb transtorms into a Hoogland-like rageboy. Not that I'd care about any of the cf/scg dudes.

[Bobmans]

Worst "article" ever. Caleb transtorms into a Hoogland-like rageboy. Not that I'd care about any of the cf/scg dudes.
That is trending, seems like WotC have kicked that off with their respons on leaks.

[Sloshthedark]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-legacy-ban-list-what-should-change/

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

<3 u Caleb

ridiculous and poorly argumented, gotta by joke or something, is it this forum copypaste? I haven't read it lately...

[Crimhead]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-legacy-ban-list-what-should-change/Wow. Dude wants to turn Legacy into powered up Modern (he even called his proposal a Modern style overhaul). Frankly he can suck my Tabernacle.

[Cartesian]

My opinion is that all those cards should be unbanned in Modern. Because I like them all, they are cool, and Modern would be more fun.
Maybe I should write an article.

[Dice_Box]

Um. Ok. That was not something I agree with. I think I will leave it at that.

Edit.
At lest he is honest about his wants, his reasons and his acknowledgement that his views are unpopular ones. This article to me is something that should be overlooked and everyone should move on from. He is stating an opinion but is not really putting any real weight behind it. In a few weeks this will be another forgotten article with no lasting impact. There is no reason now to make anything of it.

[Zombie]

Damn. He wasn't kidding when he said borderline war crimes. He's going postal on the card pool.

[Crimhead]

Not at all. Just because I think Counterbalance is overpowered does not mean I think that prison/control should be banned out of existence. That's fair. But citing CB's favourable comparison to Change is not evidence for it being OP, unless you mean to assert that Chalice is at the maximum acceptable power level for a lock piece.


Other prison cards are powerful, but ask you to sacrifice some of your own consistency in order to unlock their power. That actually means that prison becomes one of the most diverse, interactive archetypes in the format if you look at non-countertop decks. For example, a key card in both Lands and D&T is Rishadan Port. Each deck has a different way of overcoming the self-2-for-1 that Port really is (tap two of your lands to tap one of theirs): Lands has exploration/diamond, while D&T has Aether Vial. Or Chalice, which is powered out by sol lands or Mox Diamond, requires you to take one-drops out of your own deck (or reduce them to a minimum), and ends up yielding decks from MUD to Loam to Tezzeret.D&T is a disruptive white-weenie deck. It's far too aggressive to be considered a pure control deck. Lands is good, but its a small percent of the meta, and is only actually good thanks to a rules update giving it a combo element and a faster clock (it also doesn't run chalice except sometimes in the board). MUD and Tezz are not tier one, and also far more aggressive than a pure prison deck like Geddon Stacks.

Chalice is a great card for side boards and aggressive decks (merfolk & loam) to fight can trips and combo. But as a prison enabler it is sadly lacking. If you accept tier one grindier prison decks in Legacy, you simply must accept lack tools which are more effective than Chalice.


That all being said, I'm not even ready to die on the hill that Miracles needs banned immediately. However, I think it's obvious that it is the best deck, and that it comes with logistical issues that impact tournaments. Counterbalance is the reason for both of these facts, which are irrefutable.They are also knd of irrelevant, because there will always be a deck on top, which is fine as long as it has tier-one unfavourable MUs), and there will always be matches going to time.


When Chalice was banned, So Many Insane Plays did a really interesting podcast about the "dominance" of MUD.

http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-podcast-episode-49-october-2015-banned-restricted-list-update/I don't have time to listen to this what with Xmas comming and all. Can you give me the jist?



Slightly misleading. If you enter a tournament expecting to win, your chances of facing the top decks go up round by round. Miracles is unquestionably the top deck, therefore you need to consider the likelihood of facing it.Correct me if I'm wrong, but that 15% figure is calculated from top tables. If you are correct, Miracles would have lower than 15% representation in the qualifying rounds, meaning you should expect to face it even less than what I said!

Incidentally, I think you are wrong about Miracles. Every time SCG has released the day two meta breakdown of a large event, Miracles is as dense at the start of day two as it ends up in one or more top brackets.

In other words, statistically you chance of facing Miracles doesn't increase as you advance (at least not once most of the jank has been filtered out). This paints a picture of an averagely powerful deck who's results are propped up by sheer bulk.


Miracles already plays Monastery Mentor, Snapcaster Mage and Vendilion Clique, aggressive, disruptive, midrangy creatures. Ban Mentor! I'm going only kidding (though I do think the card is bad for Legacy and shouldn't have been printed).

Most Miracles builds run 0-2 Mentors, and usually fewer than six creatures (sometimes a lot fewer). So far, the deck is still decidedly less aggressive than D&T, Stoneblade, or BUG control. Still, I confess the more little dudes the deck runs the more Miracles loses its identity.


Miracles is the most played deck in Legacy, it is not under-represented.No, but hard control arguably is underrepresented compared to tempo, combo, and midrange. And if hard control isn't underrepresented, it's thanks to Miracles! Take that away and hard control barely exists only Lands remains (which is arguably combo/control).

That said, if Miracles evolved to the point where it regularly sports 11 or more of those creatures (or some arbitrary number), it will no longer be hard control and just be another midrange deck. At that point 15% might be enough to weren't a ban; since the format could potentially be in overrun with midrange decks.


There will always be hard control decks in Legacy as long as Force, Counterspell, Brainstorm, STP, and any number of other cards are legal.Mostly those cards feed Midrange and Tempo decks. Miracles is literally the only exception.

[barcode]

Wow. Dude wants to turn Legacy into powered up Modern (he even called his proposal a Modern style overhaul). Frankly he can suck my Tabernacle.

Shhh it's okay. He forgot about Ghost Quarter. Fools will still not play basic lands.

Just to spite him I will definitely play Lands tonight at FNM.

[Crimhead]

Caleb has a clear agenda. Kill of his most hated archetypes and give a boost to midrange and combo decks which aren't running blue.

[Dice_Box]

Caleb has a clear agenda. Kill of his most hated archetypes and give a boost to midrange and combo decks which aren't running blue.

Then why kill Lands?

[Crimhead]

Then why kill Lands?Because he Hates prison decks and Lands preys on midrange?



At lest he is honest about his wants, his reasons and his acknowledgement that his views are unpopular ones.Sadly his views are very popular - just not among Legacy players. That's why Modern and Standard are the way they are. Things will only get worse as more and more of the player base will have started post newb world order. Hopefully WotC keeps the format pure for those who love it. Maybe it's a good thing Legacy is prohitively expensive and WotC ate not aggressively marketing it.

[sjmcc13]

Then why kill Lands?There is always collateral damage...

[Crimhead]

There is always collateral damage...Dude wants to ban Depths. That's targeting Lands directly. Clearly he hates the deck.

Also, his notion that Wastelands is needed to keep Depths in check is laughable. And, Post & Depths are bad, but Cradle is just fine? :rolleyes: A lot of personal bias going on there.

[Zombie]

Yeah, I was like "fairer format, so Force is worse, and fast combo crippled? Time to jam half a banlist in green >:)"

[Crimhead]

Nice how he can unite a thread that is other times as war zone, though!

[GundamGuy]

Mostly those cards feed Midrange and Tempo decks. Miracles is literally the only exception.

Miracles is the only exception right now because Miracles is the control deck of the moment, ban miracles and the new control deck that will take it's place will also run those cards....

[iamajellydonut]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-legacy-ban-list-what-should-change/

Fucking what?

[Dice_Box]

Sadly his views are very popular - just not among Legacy players. That's why Modern and Standard are the way they are. Things will only get worse as more and more of the player base will have started post newb world order. Hopefully WotC keeps the format pure for those who love it. Maybe it's a good thing Legacy is prohitively expensive and WotC ate not aggressively marketing it.
Cost is its own curse and reward. I showed Lands to a Tron player this week and he said quite plainly he did not think Legacy was the format for him. I can respect his ability to recognise such things and not push to change things out of a wish or desire to make it fit his wishes. On the flip side its on us to see that we all do this but at a micro level. Some want Top banned, some want Counterbalance, Brainstorm or TNN. These are the same discussions only at a more micro scale. Granted we like to think that knowing what we do and playing as much as we do we are able to say what we think is truly in the formats best interests. This is what is also happening at a more macro level from people who think they have answers too. Really we laugh at them and their wishes, then we go back to arguing about Top/CB/Brainstorm and fail to recognise that really it's the same thing at a different margin.

Keeping the format pure is a noble goal, but Wizards has already proven they will do that. TNN is legal despite admittance it was a flaw, leaving Legacy to self regulate. Dig was given a grace period to work itself out and only then was action taken once we had a honest to God best deck in the format in Omnishow. The banning before that happened for the same reason, U/R Delver was top dog, no questions asked and so a banning was called to fix the issue. Really, now we have to admit that issues we have with the format are of personal taste as I can say the format would be better off without Brainstorm while you Crim I know would disagree. Its not cut and dry between us when I think we can both agree that something like Cruise had to go.

With this willingness to show restraint, Wizards has proven that Legacy is a format they are willing to leave to us. Vintage in much the same way gets the same treatment. There is nothing really leaning on Legacy from Wizards point of view now. We get one big event each year where by the winner gets a shiny oversized framed card and to almost any legacy player, winning that would be better than winning the Pro Tour. Why? Because we are not in the grind any more, we are not a cog in the machine any more. I would be prouder lifting a frame of Underground Sea at Eternal then I ever would being crowned a pro player. I am sure I am not alone on this.

It is for me and people like me, people like you, people that a framed picture that is worth maybe 200 bucks means so much to, it is for us and though us that Legacy lives on. That is why these articles do not matter, because this is our format and Wizards for all its flaws respects that and lets us be.

P.S.
You can tell a Vintage or Legacy player by the quality of the Loupe he/she uses when trading, try explaining that to a Standard player. We really are a community into of ourselves.

[Di]

As someone who has played 1.5/Legacy since 1999 and been bored with the format for over a year because it has become stale as hell from a design perspective, Caleb's proposals (albeit a bit insane) actually seem like they could spark something terrific for the format. With so many huge bans and changes, it would significantly warp the format to the point that it is unrecognizable, and people could brew like crazy and really start fresh and come up with some great ideas while other tier 2+ strategies now would actually have a chance to see play.

The only other time in this format's history that something of that magnitude has occurred is when the Type 1/1.5 list was split and Legacy actually had it's own first crack as a format. It was an extremely interesting time because so many decks could be played without worry of being oppressed by shit like Workshops and Bazaars. The first Legacy Grand Prix in Philadelphia was amazing, because nobody had any clue what would win or do well. The tempo-based Threshold shells that are now ubiquitous with what we see today were barely a known commodity. Ill-fucking-Gotten Gains was the best combo deck. Anything could win.

How would such an overhaul apply today? Can you imagine actively eschewing Force of Will from a non-Merfolk blue deck? Without fear of Show and Tell and Storm killing you on turn two, you could theoretically get away with it. Granted other combo decks would pop up in their place so you'd still probably want it, but you get the idea. But the same shit that has stagnated in this format over the last five years would be gone. Miracles would be gone, Delver decks would be gone (as would most tempo-based shells unless they look like the turds that are in Modern), the fastest combo decks would be gone, Lands would be gone, blue would no longer be the best color, and people would no longer have to whine about being blown out by Wasteland. No more of the "Well I kept the one land Brainstorm/Ponder hand, but got Wastelanded anyway and lost" shit because removing those aspects of the format will tighten mulligan decisions and deck design. Just like back in 2004 when so many decks were driven out of the format due to Workshop and Bazaar and Mana Drain, the same thing could be said today when you remove those types of dominant aspects from the format now.

Granted I don't agree with his selections necessarily, but the premise just seems like it could be something nice to give the format new life, especially after SCG dropping support. My only gripe is that if these types of bans were to happen, unbans of other things would probably need to occur simultaneously. This would spice things up a lot more when completely new decks could come around. Some of these are more obvious, like Earthcraft or Frantic Search. Memory Jar could (and currently could) likely come off because the rest of Storm is neutered, though Mind Twist actually seems a lot stronger when the format slows down like that, but the card still probably sucks. Windfall and Bargain aren't better than things available currently, but Windfall would become super interesting as the format loses those potent draw spells for combo decks.

[Dice_Box]

Di, out of interest, why do you think it is good to remove Lands as a deck? It is one of the best non Blue decks to appear since Elves really, why kill it so?

[Raystar]

Di, out of interest, why do you think it is good to remove Lands as a deck? It is one of the best non Blue decks to appear since Elves really, why kill it so?

He said he agrees with the idea, not the list of cards....

[Di]

Di, out of interest, why do you think it is good to remove Lands as a deck? It is one of the best non Blue decks to appear since Elves really, why kill it so?

I personally don't think it is necessarily good to remove Lands as a deck and I really enjoy it as a part in the format. Lands essentially gave me a free win in round 13 of Grand Prix Indianapolis to clinch top8, so it can stay here as long as it likes. :) I called it out simply because it was among those decks that the proposal in question would effectively kill. Besides, it isn't much of a consolation to being a "great non-blue" deck when Caleb's proposal would effectively destroy the stranglehold blue has over the format in the first place.

I'm rather objective when it comes to these banning ideas myself (except Show and Tell, that needs to get the fuck out of here), but instead just want to see the theoretical impact of something like this on the format. My entire argument just wrapped around the premise that existing decks and format pillars being removed would inspire the Legacy community to collectively need to start over. It would eliminate the stagnation we have been seeing the last couple years and force people to try something new. Sure, people can make the argument that new decks occasionally pop up and do well and cards get added to decks and things evolve, but Legacy has proven to be incredibly consistent with what sticks to the top for prolonged periods of time. Unfortunately though that is just dull as hell, and being a person who has played the format for 16 years and helped build the foundation for it, that just doesn't seem very interesting anymore when we are playing adaptations of the same trifecta of decks over and over for years on end.

I realize it isn't in the spirit of "Eternal" formats to enforce change and transition, but it also isn't in its spirit to suffocate a format that is supposed to be regarded for being able to play a wide range of decks and remain competitive. It's pretty sad when we have a card pool as large as we do, and yet the number of viable decks is similar to the number of viable decks in Standard. Too often do we hear people complain that they ran into Delver for the 5th time on day one of an event, or played the same 2-3 decks over the course of a tournament. I do believe change is necessary if it gets to that point, which is where Legacy currently sits at. So having something like a big shakeup seems like a great remedy for the situation. Simply banning or unbanning one card likely won't have that kind of impact (barring something as ubiquitous as Wasteland, Brainstorm, Force of Will, etc.). Looking at the latest string of unbans, they have had virtually no impact on the format. The last time an unban has had any sort of relevant impact on the format was Time Spiral in freaking 2010, and before that 2009 when Entomb was unbanned. That was five years ago! And when something gets banned--just take the recent examples of Treasure Cruise or Dig Through Time, or even the other most recent example before that in Mental Misstep--the format just reverts to exactly what it was beforehand, and it's like it never happened.

[Berserking Now]

I disagree with Caleb. The banning of ponder is not even backed by any reasoning. Those suggested bans kill multiple decks and would discourage me from playing legacy. I enjoy playing around wasteland, hitting with cabal therapy after a brainstorm was casted in response, and being able to chain cantrips to generate lethal damage.

[death]

I disagree with Caleb. The banning of ponder is not even backed by any reasoning.

At least you'd still have Preordain (and Serum Visions) since he forgot to mention Preordain. Also, Lotus Petal, Dark Rit, Rain of Filth and Bubbling Muck.

[Bobmans]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-legacy-ban-list-what-should-change/

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

<3 u Caleb
Someone should punch Caleb in the face. Go play Modern and Lego if you dont like MtG

[death]

Caleb, I hope you step on a LEGO. Just kidding, :tongue:.

[Paul7926]

This is what bothers me and it's not just Caleb's article that starts this way:

"It all started when I realized I was playing more Modern than Legacy on MTGO, and I started thinking about why, and I realized that a large difference in the quality of play between the two formats comes down to the existence of one card in particular."

The whole premise of all these 'let's completely redefine the format' articles are based on the fact that the format is not what the author wants to play. Well why don't they go play something else rather than altering everything to be the way they personally want it to be?

[thefringthing]

The Source should host Cockatrice tournaments each week with a different banned list. Could be a lot of fun for people who want to brew something, or who want to prove a point about what should or shouldn't be on the B/R List.

[Dice_Box]

I like that idea. I would love to see what Recruiter could do.

[Crimhead]

Lands with Strip Mine!

[Quasim0ff]

Lands with Strip Mine!

Withtout loam, and it's OK. ;)

[Dice_Box]

Lands with Strip Mine!

I would be more interested in Lands with Fastbond as a real test. Strip Mine is not a happening thing, but Bond could work. (Ok, not really.)

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Not sure if durward's article is meant to be taken that seriously.

Bare in mind for the section about ponder, he simply leaves the two word argument of "fuck it", heck his closing statement features a picture of grumpy cat and mentioning how it would hit legacy players "right in the salt dispenser".

[thefringthing]

Not sure if durward's article is meant to be taken that seriously. So how many posts was that before someone got it? Pretty embarrassing. Is The Source the most easily trolled online Magic community? Maybe there should be a poll thread about that.

[sjmcc13]

Dude wants to ban Depths. That's targeting Lands directly. Clearly he hates the deck.

Also, his notion that Wastelands is needed to keep Depths in check is laughable. And, Post & Depths are bad, but Cradle is just fine? :rolleyes: A lot of personal bias going on there.

sorry, missed that one, guess I zoned out on to much of the "article"...


The whole premise of all these 'let's completely redefine the format' articles are based on the fact that the format is not what the author wants to play. Well why don't they go play something else rather than altering everything to be the way they personally want it to be?

Because there are cards they want to play that are not legal in those formats???

[Amon Amarth]

I get wanting to make Legacy more interesting but I'd rather unban than ban things. Legacy is boring. I'd rather have more stuff to play with than less. Also I think there is Modern, sounds like maybe Caleb should go play that. ;)

[Stevestamopz]

So how many posts was that before someone got it? Pretty embarrassing. Is The Source the most easily trolled online Magic community? Maybe there should be a poll thread about that.

Watching everyone here and on plebbit getting so assblasted about one article with ideas on the b/r list that will NEVER happen was very amusing.
Just replace guns with brainstorm/show and tell/led/any other derpy card and you all turn into the NRA.

It seems like everyone on this board wants Miracles hurt in some way, but will immediately tell you to fuck off to modern if you dare to suggest that you agree with any of Caleb's list... the irony being that without Miracles, Legacy would be just a souped up Modern. The sole existence of a hard control deck is what separates Legacy from Miracles.

Legacy | Modern
Elves = Affinity
Show and Tell = Twin
Jund = Jund
Burn = Burn
Storm = Storm
Infect = Infect
Delver decks = Delver decks
Belcher/Reanimator/Dredge = Amulet Bloom/Goryo's Vengeance/whatever other non-interactive combo deck there is.

Sounds to me like the people telling Caleb/me to fuck off back to Modern would actually be the ones to really enjoy Modern.

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Show and Tell = Twin



I see what you are trying to say, but this is an inadequate comparison.

The article is nonsense, so why bother discussing it? This is how Donald Trump gets so much camera face-time-says something ridiculous and then continues saying it.

From my phone. I do my best, dammit!

[Crimhead]

It seems like everyone on this board wants Miracles hurt in some way, but will immediately tell you to fuck off to modern if you dare to suggest that you agree with any of Caleb's list... the irony being that without Miracles, Legacy would be just a souped up Modern.I don't particularly want to see Miracles hurt, and I'm not even be of the (presumably) large demographic of people who like to play that deck!

But without arguing your questionable deck-to-deck analogies, I'll ask one question:

In "souped up modern", can you lock opponents out with Wastelands, Ports, Mazes, and Tabernacle; all the while setting up for an uncounterable, flying, indestructible, 20/20 for two mana?

[tescrin]

the irony being that without Miracles, Legacy would be just a souped up Modern. The sole existence of a hard control deck is what separates Legacy from Miracles.

That's just not true. Miracles also pins down combo pretty reasonably, making it much more difficult for Storm and Elves in particular, due to Terminus wiping out their means to winning before getting locked out (barring lucky hands or bad miracles hands.)

While I'm not on either side of the fence on it, let's not just lie to ourselves. Hard control like Lands would exist without Miracles, and if we dropped CB we'd probably still have a Miracles deck, but it'd be more aggressive.
___________

Also, I don't see how something like Tezzerator that attempts to lock you out before the win isn't hard control. They just put up chalices, bridges, and grave hate for a few turns and eventually beat you to death with Thopters, 5/5's, or Tezz Ults. There's also aggro loam, but I'm sure because it's GRx with PFire/Loam, it's the same deck yeah?

The fact that we separate into "Control" and "Hard Control" just to make your distinction is another laughable point. Jund is pretty much a control deck (15 removal, 7 of it recurring, the deck only runs on card advantage.) Shardless is pretty much a control deck (it's completely based on card advantage.)

These decks also tend to lose to Combo as you'd expect, and tend to be a beating against aggro, as the "Control" slice of the Rock Paper Scissors MU style would suggest they "should."

You require evidence for your point, and currently your point is garbage due to me being able to just simply throw out 3 hard control decks and a pair of regular control decks like nothing.
________

Just because Modern lacks every engine known to man doesn't mean legacy wouldn't still have Thopters, Loam, Pfire, Jace, and other heavy-handed control pieces. We'd likely revert to UW Stoneblade decks (which still do fine) without CB. Without Terminus we'd still have a similar version of the hard control, but with worse sweepers (varying it's set of MU percentages.)

It's absolute hyperbole to suggest that somehow, Miracles IS Legacy. Or.. if you think that "Miracles is Legacy", you're just admitting you think there's a problem.

[Crimhead]

The fact that we separate into "Control" and "Hard Control" just to make your distinction is another laughable point.

Control & Beatdown are better thought of as opposing roles which decks take in a match. These roles are fluid depending on the game state. I'm sure we've all read Who's The Beatdown.

Even control decks sometimes find themselves in a position where the opponent is in the control seat and the best plan is to apply pressure. The more difficult it is to muster that pressure, the "harder" the control deck. This usually relates to how many threats the deck runs (and how early they come into play).

For instance, when playing RUG Lands I am almost always the control deck. Decks like Shardless, Stoneblade, D&T (or Jund, I guess) can very easily "go aggro" against me. Decks like Miracles or Pox have a much harder time trying to put a clock on me - they are just not built to do that. The former are aggro/control decks, while the latter are hard control decks.

[GundamGuy]

I like how the DTB list keeps getting smaller over time as the diversity of the format is getting crushed under the might of the number one deck to beat 7 of the 12 months of the year (and the rest of the time it was the number 2 deck to beat...). [It might have been more if the DTB was keep updated every month in 2015...]

But yeah RUG delver... which didn't even make it into the DTB every month... is the real problem. :rolleyes:

[Dice_Box]

I like how the DTB list keeps getting smaller over time as the diversity of the format is getting crushed under the might of the number one deck to beat 7 of the 12 months of the year (and the rest of the time it was the number 2 deck to beat...). [It might have been more if the DTB was keep updated every month in 2015...]

But yeah RUG delver... which didn't even make it into the DTB every month... is the real problem. :rolleyes:
Remember, the bar to entry to get into the DTB section was raised at the beginning of last year from 3.4% to 4.6%. After that, yes the number of decks did decrease. The subfourm was designed to.

Edit:

In the end, my ideal format is actually just Modern with the more interesting and unique Legacy cards added in.
I think we can now drop all talk on the article's he writes. He was always open about his wants, but now we have all evidence needed to admit we do not see eye to eye with the man and leave him to his own musings.

Link: http://www.channelfireball.com/home/one-crazy-idea-to-improve-modern/

[GundamGuy]

Remember, the bar to entry to get into the DTB section was raised at the beginning of last year from 3.4% to 4.6%. After that, yes the number of decks did decrease. The subfourm was designed to.

Edit:

I think we can now drop all talk on the article's he writes. He was always open about his wants, but now we can admit we do not see eye to eye with the man and leave him to his own musings.

Link: http://www.channelfireball.com/home/one-crazy-idea-to-improve-modern/


Yeah, that is a valid point.

But I wasn't really looking at this time last year vis this time this year. I was commenting on the month to months shifts (using the same methodology). I noticed how the format expands some after a major shift (like earlier this year with the banning of Treasure Cruse, then again with the Banning of DTT.) and then constricts down to basically 4 decks and Miracles.

It's almost like Miracles should actually be called Death and Taxes since it's the only real constant...

[Dice_Box]

The data I have access to actually shows RUG Delver to be the most top heavy deck of the last few years. It held its place in the DTB section longer than any other deck from what I can tell. Miracles is just the latest to take the mantle of top dog these days like RUG did once. While I will admit it's a bitch to play against that's not really a banable offence.

[sjmcc13]

While I will admit it's a bitch to play against that's not really a banable offence. Unfortunately there are some/many who see it as one. :(

[GundamGuy]

The data I have access to actually shows RUG Delver to be the most top heavy deck of the last few years. It held its place in the DTB section longer than any other deck from what I can tell.

I'm not exactly sure how you can say that... RUG Delver (or the various other names it appears under, Threshold UGR, Canadian Thresh) shows up right before the words "is out." in the DTB thread a lot.

Some numbers that I just put together.
RUG Delver Months in DTB: 10 of 21 [Since Jan 2014 when the methodology changed, 2 months were skipped in DTB]
Miracles Months in DTB: 20 of 21

RUG Delver Average Rank in DTB: 4.3
Miracles Average Rank in DTB: 1.6

Also just want to point this out... RUG Delver isn't currently a DTB by the DTB selection critera.

Sure you might have other data or a different way to look at it or measure. That's fine and that's not wrong... but this is where I am coming from when I say Miracles is unchallenged a top the decks to beat. Placing in the top 2 (it's lowest month was a 3 one time in early 2014...) month in and month out (while RUG was having a lot more variation... being in one month and out the next over and over again) tells me that Miracles is pretty much good in whatever meta, regardless of what else is going on in the format.... It's just the best deck... by a landslide.


While I will admit it's a bitch to play against that's not really a banable offence.

First: I think this is a disingenuous argument. By suggesting it's all about "bad feels" you can dismiss opinions as being emotional not rational... I personally enjoy the challenge of miracles every so often, it's a really grind game against the deck I play most of the time, where you have to know what really is worth fighting over...

Second: Do you remember Modern Eggs...?

Third: That's not why I think it's bannable. The fact that it's been the top deck or the second best (going by DTB info) deck for 19 consecutive months (soon to be 20 I'd wager...) and wins in whatever meta you put it in... including meta's that drop RUG delver out of the DTB.... that maybe we should honestly evaluate if it Miracles approaching the point of being a problem.

[Dice_Box]

I was talking long term, not just the past year. If you look over the history of Legacy for the last 5 or so years, Delver puts Miracles well and truly to shame. If you want to go back further, Goblins ran around with the format for longer still.

If you want to snap just the last 12 months then fine, nothing touches Miracles but that's a disingenuous scale when the format is more than a decade old. Miracles is just the latest holder of a well worn and not often passed on crown: "Most popular deck in the format".

As for Modern eggs, it was banned for the same reason given for Shahrazad. While I will agree they are not fun to play against, it was issues of tournament constrains that cost these cards. If a card could be banned for giving feel bads, I would own a set of Workshops worth considerably less than they do right now. Because that deck is hell and even with Chalice taking a hit, it's still among the very top of the Vintage tiers.

[btm10]

If you want to snap just the last 12 months then fine, nothing touches Miracles but that's a disingenuous scale when the format is more than a decade old. Miracles is just the latest holder of a well worn and not often passed on crown: "Most popular deck in the format".


This is really the crux of the matter. Miracles' success is impossible to disentangle from the fact that it's a very popular deck that is also quite powerful. Add in the fact that it's one of the least expensive "teir 1" decks to build (there are some successful lists that only run 3-5 duals) and has both a high floor and high ceiling for play skill (i.e., it has a large differential between how well good and bad players will do with it, but CounterTop + Terminus also gives just as many free wins as Delver + Wasteland) so a lot of people are drawn to it for those reasons as well. Europe seems to have already passed peak Miracles based on TCDecks, and the European meta is usually a good leading indicator for the US meta.

[GundamGuy]

I was talking long term, not just the past year. If you look over the history of Legacy for the last 5 or so years, Delver puts Miracles well and truly to shame. If you want to go back further, Goblins ran around with the format for longer still.

If you want to snap just the last 12 months then fine, nothing touches Miracles but that's a disingenuous scale when the format is more than a decade old. Miracles is just the latest holder of a well worn and not often passed on crown: "Most popular deck in the format".

As for Modern eggs, it was banned for the same reason given for Shahrazad. While I will agree they are not fun to play against, it was issues of tournament constrains that cost these cards. If a card could be banned for giving feel bads, I would own a set of Workshops worth considerably less than they do right now. Because that deck is hell and even with Chalice taking a hit, it's still among the very top of the Vintage tiers.

It was nearly 24 months... not 12... for nearly 2 years now nothing has come close to unseating Miracles...
I think recent history is far more important then data points that are years and years old. Your right that goblins used to be one one heck of a deck, but times change, Batterskulls are printed... and here we are... If we were debating what the best legacy deck of all time is... (Hulk-Flash...) then I think the fact that RUG was dominate for 2ish years from 2011-2013 is pretty relevant.

Here's my prediction Miracles will continue to dominate the DTB calculations in the format for the next 24 months (barring a banning.)

There is alwasy going to be a "Most Popular Deck" that's true. In the past people would key up on a deck and that deck would do well but then people would meta game against it and it would fall some, (not alwasy out of the DTB, but from 1 to 4 or 5 for the month)... and something else would take top slots for the month, then that deck would get meta gamed and the cycle would continue. Sure it would be like 5-10 decks that ended up at the top most of the time, but from month to month there was more verity and flux in the meta game. We just aren't really getting that now... at least not with the top decks... maybe the lower half of the DTB cycles in and out, but the top DTB is pretty much a given at this point...

So yeah it's all how you want to look at it. I just miss the days when the top deck of the format would cycle from month to month...

[Dice_Box]

I know Batterskull was printed, my point was that Goblins was a very popular deck for a very long time and then things changed. I am not asking what was the best deck ever in the format, I am simply stating that a deck being Dominate is not exactly a new phenomenon. After Goblins Maverick was the best deck, again faded. Then RUG Delver, now faded. Today we are in the time of Miracles but it too will fade. That's Legacy.

Also just to point out, the time of Miracles would be over if not for the bannings of Cruise and Dig. Though artificial means Miracles holds its titile, but it did lose it. As it will again in the future.

[GundamGuy]

Also just to point out, the time of Miracles would be over if not for the bannings of Cruise and Dig. Though artificial means Miracles holds its titile, but it did lose it. As it will again in the future.

Cruise and Dig were printed in fall 2014... Miracles fell at worst to DTB #2 (EDIT: Turn out it hit #3 a whole one time that I missed, before bouncing back into #1) during the time span from Fall 2014 (when Cruse and Dig were printed) to today (after both were banned)... So I'd like to understand how you read that information and suggest that if it weren't for Cruse and Dig being banned Miracles would be "over."

Cruse and Dig didn't hurt miracles... very much at all... because nothing hurts miracles very much at all.

[Dice_Box]

Cruise got a cycle. I wish it had more, but it didn't so total data for that is to be left incomplete.

As for Dig, Omni was taking over, chewing at its heals and taking its crown. While Miracles was still the most popular deck, it was no longer the most powerful. That title moved to Omni. The shift of balance would take time, but Miracles was losing ground as the shift took place.

Also, for the irony, Goblins hurts Miracles. Not that I would take Goblins to the bank these days.

[GundamGuy]

Cruise got a cycle. I wish it had more, but it didn't so total data for that is to be left incomplete.

As for Dig, Omni was taking over, chewing at its heals and taking its crown. While Miracles was still the most popular deck, it was no longer the most powerful. That title moved to Omni. The shift of balance would take time, but Miracles was losing ground as the shift took place.

Also, for the irony, Goblins hurts Miracles. Not that I would take Goblins to the bank these days.

Omni only seemed like it was taking over because it was the hot new thing, Miracles still peformed very well in that meta. In fact if you use the DTB formula there was only one month since Omnitell hit the scene in which Omnitell ranked higher then Miracles.

Maybe Omnitell would eventually push Miracles out of the format, but the data doesn't really show that, it shows Miracles continuing along on top of the format like alwasy... just business as usual for Miracles...

What I bolded is a very good point. The decks that have good miracles matchups are largely unplayable now for other reasons. It's sort of like all of miracles natural predators have gone extinct.

[Dice_Box]

Fair enough. I do think Omintell had staying power though.

Having never played either side of the matchup, I am told Shardless holds its own well against Miracles. If that's true I think you have a deck there that would be a fine pick. Mud does well too and if they print more draw engines like this Seagate land it might see an untick in play.

I guess with all the talk and articles we will find out in a month what Wizards thinks on the matter. If they are going to take a card so be it but I will not enjoy writing that months announcement at all. I like Miracles in the format and I would think that with the unbanning of a "Real*" card we might see something beneficial happen that doesn't mean a large percentage of the format loses their deck.

* An impactful card.

[Tammit67]

What I bolded is a very good point. The decks that have good miracles matchups are largely unplayable now for other reasons. It's sort of like all of miracles natural predators have gone extinct.

I don't think they go extinct/obsolete so much as people don't want to play them. Aggro loam and infect are still good decks but they aren't as popular with people. You do have a point when you consider merfolk/goblins aren't good because other decks in the format make them a poor choice, but I do think their are underutilized decks that could feel that spot in the meta.

One of the 'nicer' things about being blue though is that even if something is a bad matchup, the cantrips and versatility of counterspells can leave you decently prepared. URW in particular has a lot of sideboard options.

[Stevestamopz]

I know Batterskull was printed, my point was that Goblins was a very popular deck for a very long time and then things changed. I am not asking what was the best deck ever in the format, I am simply stating that a deck being Dominate is not exactly a new phenomenon. After Goblins Maverick was the best deck, again faded. Then RUG Delver, now faded. Today we are in the time of Miracles but it too will fade. That's Legacy.

Also just to point out, the time of Miracles would be over if not for the bannings of Cruise and Dig. Though artificial means Miracles holds its titile, but it did lose it. As it will again in the future.

Remember when Maverick was the #1 Deck, by a long shot? I know it's just one tournament, but these results are hilarious.

http://i.imgur.com/OjySuOP.png

[Crimhead]

First: I think this is a disingenuous argument. By suggesting it's all about "bad feels" you can dismiss opinions as being emotional not rationalExcept he is backing this up by showing other times in Legacy's past when a top deck enjoyed a long reign (Thresh and Goblins). Those decks were never objected to as strongly as Miracles is, and the only real difference is that Miracles causes bad feels in a way that creature based decks do not.

Consider Maverick in its prime. The deck was far more dominant than Miracles ever was. It even had similar objectionable features - hate bears like Teeg, Thalia, Scooze, etc gave it good matches vs both control and combo. But most people remember this era fondly because the big deck was aggro/control and not hard/prison control. Bad feels!


Second: Do you remember Modern Eggs...?Wasn't that the same format that banned Wild Nacatl? Please refrain from presenting Modern banned list decisions as having any kind of precedent relevant to Legacy.


Third: That's not why I think it's bannable. The fact that it's been the top deck or the second best (going by DTB info) deck for 19 consecutive months (soon to be 20 I'd wager...) and wins in whatever meta you put it in... including meta's that drop RUG delver out of the DTB.... that maybe we should honestly evaluate if it Miracles approaching the point of being a problem.But there is nothing wrong with being a top deck (or second top deck) as long as that deck is beatable and has (tier one) unfavourable MUs.

And I have no idea what you mean by "wins in every meta". Miracles is top in the current American (big circuit) meta, and was also strong in recent such metas. It is not as Strong in the European meta, nor of course in many local metas.

Usually a deck stays at the top until new printings push it out. Maverick fell because new RTR cards made Jund better. Jund fell because of TNN. Goblins had a gradual decline as everything else around them got better over the years. Miracles is having its day in the sun, but this is nothing new or unprecedented. Only this time it happens to be a deck that gets under folks skin a little more.

[GundamGuy]

But there is nothing wrong with being a top deck (or second top deck) as long as that deck is beatable and has (tier one) unfavourable MUs.

And I have no idea what you mean by "wins in every meta". Miracles is top in the current American (big circuit) meta, and was also strong in recent such metas. It is not as Strong in the European meta, nor of course in many local metas.

Usually a deck stays at the top until new printings push it out. Maverick fell because new RTR cards made Jund better. Jund fell because of TNN. Goblins had a gradual decline as everything else around them got better over the years. Miracles is having its day in the sun, but this is nothing new or unprecedented. Only this time it happens to be a deck that gets under folks skin a little more.

Two points:

1) I've asked before... what are these Tier One unfavorable MU that you keep referring too... (Goblins and 12-post? :laugh:)

2) Throwing this out there, but Miracle Control predates RTR, and while it wasn't a dominate force at the time, it has been gaining ground and not giving it back up, unlike these other decks that printings have actually had a real impact on. IMO only time will tell, but I personally don't think any new printings will ever actually make Miracles worse.

[Dice_Box]

Two points:

1) I've asked before... what are these Tier One unfavorable MU that you keep referring too... (Goblins and 12-post? :laugh:)
In 05 I could have asked this same question about Goblins.

I have done up an Excel spreadsheet using all data openly available from TDecks. At a glance it will tell you the DTB for each month going back to Jan 13. I am doing some larger number crunching right now and this is a first step to help me with that. I leave it here for you all to look at if you think it will be helpful while I start crunching numbers beyond 13 using data from SCG and this thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?2587-Top-4-s-amp-Top-8-s-POST-RESULTS-HERE&highlight=). I also have some of the old DTB data open to me as I am now doing those updates. To be honest its all that old data that got me interested in the number crunching and I would like to put datesamps on everything I have. Anyway, here is the Drop Box link. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/aiam1j6lhhikrxu/TCD.ods?dl=0) Its nothing you can not get yourself but it's all in one place and its easy to read.

PM me if you have any questions.

[Crimhead]

Two points:
1) I've asked before... what are these Tier One unfavorable MU that you keep referring too... (Goblins and 12-post? :laugh:)
I gave a list a few pages back. Merfolk, Loam, Infect, and Shardless mostly. I'd argue that Lands has a slight edge - depending on The specific lists. Miracles should not do well in a meta heavy with these decks - especially if there are not a lot of Elf pilots.

Miracles also doesn't have a lot of (tier one) MUs that are more than slightly favourable. Elves is a good time for Miracles, but Storm, D&T and Tempo deck of the week are pretty close. Miracles also enjoys the advantage of a blow-out vs the formats most popular and accessible budget deck (Burn). Overall the deck averages close to 50/50 against the field.



IMO only time will tell, but I personally don't think any new printings will ever actually make Miracles worse.Any cards that directly help it's bad MUs will make those decks more prominent. Any card printed that you indirectly helps this decks (by positively affecting the meta) will hurt Miracles. And any card that Miracles doesn't use but improves other decks could potentially hurt Miracles. If enough of Miracle's slightly favourable MUs become slightly unfavourable, it won't be very good anymore. Don't expect a single new card to blow it out of the water. Expect a gradual decline (as is already evidenced in Europe).

[GundamGuy]

I gave a list a few pages back. Merfolk, Loam, Infect, and Shardless mostly. I'd argue that Lands has a slight edge - depending on The specific lists. Miracles should not do well in a meta heavy with these decks - especially if there are not a lot of Elf pilots.

Miracles also doesn't have a lot of (tier one) MUs that are more than slightly favourable. Elves is a good time for Miracles, but Storm, D&T and Tempo deck of the week are pretty close. Miracles also enjoys the advantage of a blow-out vs the formats most popular and accessible budget deck (Burn). Overall the deck averages close to 50/50 against the field.


Any cards that directly help it's bad MUs will make those decks more prominent. Any card printed that you indirectly helps this decks (by positively affecting the meta) will hurt Miracles. And any card that Miracles doesn't use but improves other decks could potentially hurt Miracles. If enough of Miracle's slightly favourable MUs become slightly unfavourable, it won't be very good anymore. Don't expect a single new card to blow it out of the water. Expect a gradual decline (as is already evidenced in Europe).

Gee it sure is strange how many people and pros decide to pilot a deck that merely 50/50 against the field every weekend... maybe they haven't gotten the "it's not that good" memo yet. IDK, maybe they aren't picking a deck that's merely average...

Also doesn't that mean that Miracles is a pretty different beast then the other "Better then Miracles decks" that folded to the printing of 1-2 cards in one set?

Is it fair to say that your argument is that Miracles is actually not very good at all (only 50/50 vs the Field) and is only a Top Deck to beat 20 months running because it's over played by people who should be playing something better?

[Crimhead]

Is it fair to say that your argument is that Miracles is actually not very good at all (only 50/50 vs the Field) and is only a Top Deck to beat 20 months running because it's over played by people who should be playing something better?I think its a shave better than 50/50 - certainly a deck with a winning record!

I'm saying the reason it appears to do so much getter than the other decks with +ve records is because more people play Miracles than any other similarly powerful deck.

[GundamGuy]

I'm saying the reason it appears to do so much getter than the other decks with +ve records is because more people play Miracles than any other similarly powerful deck.

What you are saying is that it is over represented... so my follow up question is why if other similarly powerful decks exist do people choose to play Miracles month in and month out?

IMO, the causality goes the the other way and the reason Miracles is played so much more then other similarly powerful decks... is because it's had more success over a longer period of time, and has the best chance to be good any given week, over decks that might be similarly powerful but need a more favorable meta to excel.

Also: About the Teir 1 Decks you picked...

Merfolk is not Tier 1.

I'm not sure about Aggro Loam, but last I heard the decks you picked are not even 60/40 against Miracles. Infect and Lands are really close to 50/50. Shardless (and maybe Aggro Loam) are the best here, and even they aren't slam dunks...

[Crimhead]

...so my follow up question is why if other similarly powerful decks exist do people choose to play Miracles month in and month out?I don't think that really matters. Numbers matter. And the greater the number of players on any given deck (whatever their reason), the greater the number of finishes it needs to be considered average, good, oppressive, or whatever. You're trained in stats, so you must agree.

If we want to speculate on the psychology, most people will assume (as you do) that the deck with the most top finishes must be the best regardless of its actual representation. If that deck is indeed a solid contender (above average), they have no reason to switch. People keep playing it in big numbers, so it keeps putting up proportionately big results.

Beyond that, there are many factors that go into deck selection. Miracles is the only tier-one stack-based hard control deck in the format, so old school control players flock to it. It's cheaper than most decks (specifically fewer duals); and known for rewarding skill (most Legacy players want a challenging deck - which incidentally is probably why fewer people play MUD/Post).

And of course lots of people don't switch decks very much. For anyone with less than a gauntlet, the cost is significant (even to a pro, shelling out $1000+ is not trivial, and will cut into those coveted profits). Plus it's a common conception (and probably true) that people who play mostly one deck for a long time play better on average than people who switch frequently or have been playing their current deck only a short time. The result is a lot of players won't abandon a deck unless it starts being actually bad (and this is evident in top 8s), or another deck is looking considerably better (also visibly in top 8s).


What you are saying is that it is over represented...I'm not sure what you mean by "over-represented". If the deck sees top finishes in higher proportions that it sees entries, it is over-represented. To me this is what defines the strength or positioning of a deck - every tier one deck (or contender, or whatever you call it) is over-represented in the top brackets.

Miracles is over-represented in top brackets but not by very much.

[GundamGuy]

I don't think that really matters. Numbers matter. And the greater the number of players on any given deck (whatever their reason), the greater the number of finishes it needs to be considered average, good, oppressive, or whatever. You're trained in stats, so you must agree.

Miracles is over-represented in top brackets but not by very much.

I do agree.

The DTB data also shows a much higher top 8 placment rate for Miracles over the past few months, as much as double the second place deck.

I do think the casuality matters. I don't think a deck is only good because it's played by a lot of people. I think it's actually the case that it's a good deck, and that's why a lot of people play it.

Keep in mind that the only decks that came close to upsetting the status quo with Miracles in the last 12 months were only able to do so on the back of card advantage cards that are now banned because they were too good.

Look at the latest DTB data (needs that X-axis label back) BUG had over 2/3's the placements that Miracles had, but has under 2/3 of the points that Miracles achieved...

When I say overpresented, what I mean is that too many people are picking it to play given how average it is. Not how it's finishing.

[Admiral_Arzar]

I gave a list a few pages back. Merfolk, Loam, Infect, and Shardless mostly. I'd argue that Lands has a slight edge - depending on The specific lists. Miracles should not do well in a meta heavy with these decks - especially if there are not a lot of Elf pilots.

Miracles also doesn't have a lot of (tier one) MUs that are more than slightly favourable. Elves is a good time for Miracles, but Storm, D&T and Tempo deck of the week are pretty close. Miracles also enjoys the advantage of a blow-out vs the formats most popular and accessible budget deck (Burn). Overall the deck averages close to 50/50 against the field.



Shardless is the only tier one deck out of that list, and that matchup has become less unfavorable since the adoption of Monastery Mentor. Lands is strong against novice Miracles players but struggles against those who actually know what they are doing. The point (which you have not refuted) is that there is no tier-one deck which is a blowout against Miracles. Also, Storm even against Miracles? What alternate reality are you speaking from? The matchup preboard is bad enough, between Counterbalance and a bunch of countermagic. Postboard Miracles shaves its dead cards for Meddling Mage, Flusterstorm, Blasts, and yard hate (sometimes even Canonist) whereas Storm must dilute its combo to have a hope of stopping Counterbalance AND postboard hate bears.

[Crimhead]

I do agree.

The DTB data also shows a much higher top 8 placment rate for Miracles over the past few months, as much as double the second place deck.Then you are missing my point.

What I'm saying is that if Miracles has twice as many pilots as the that second deck, it's actually performing the same, not better. And this is true regardless of the motivations for playing the deck - its a fact of math!

Frankly though you do not be understand the methodology of the DTBF and have no business citing it in an argument. Wanna prove me wrong? I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time for you do address the quote in my SIG (taken from the banned list philosophy page) and reconcile it with you interpretation of DTBF data.

I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement. I have so far addressed every point you have made. You continually ignore this! It's incredibly obnoxious when you are investing time debating with somebody and they repeatedly ignore points you continually bring up. It also shows that you have no answer, but are unwilling to modify your view in light of evidence you can't refute.

If you want to continue you must step up your game and display some intellectual honesty.

[HSCK]

Then you are missing my point.

What I'm saying is that if Miracles has twice as many pilots as the that second deck, it's actually performing the same, not better. And this is true regardless of the motivations for playing the deck - its a fact of math!

Frankly though you do not be understand the methodology of the DTBF and have no business citing it in an argument. Wanna prove me wrong? I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time for you do address the quote in my SIG (taken from the banned list philosophy page) and reconcile it with you interpretation of DTBF data.

I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement. I have so far addressed every point you have made. You continually ignore this! It's incredibly obnoxious when you are investing time debating with somebody and they repeatedly ignore points you continually bring up. It also shows that you have no answer, but are unwilling to modify your view in light of evidence you can't refute.

If you want to continue you must step up your game and display some intellectual honesty.


Your entire argument consists of, "Well it's not like 50% of the top 8s and it doesn't have creatures so that's really important!" I'm not sure what kind of intellectual honesty you're looking for.

[Crimhead]

I'm not sure what kind of intellectual honesty you're looking for.
My arguments are as follows:
Its numbers in top brackets are strong but far from oppressive.
Other long reigning top decks have had more impressive numbers in top brackets, but there was never an outcry to ban cards that, eg, Maverick would run. This indicates the reaction to Miracles is related to the distasteful play style rather than the numbers alone.
Miracles is played in significantly higher numbers than other tier-one decks. This means its representation in top brackets are much less impressive when properly scaled. This is undeniably evident by the fact that Miracles decks to not decome denser between the start of day two through the final tables!
Logistics has never been used in Legacy to ban out legitimate strategy.
As for not running aggressive creatures as a main strategic tool, it should be noted that the percent of top 8s a deck can produce before being considered a problem is subjective. Any precise figure would be arbitrary. Personally I feel that the more differently a deck plays than other decks in the format (with emphasis on threats, answers, and other interactive elements), the higher a percent of the meta that deck can occupy without hurting format diversity.

You might not agree with me, but that doesn't make me intellectually dishonest! Intellectual dishonesty is intentionally ignoring any facts or considerations which stand to challenge your assertions.


Your entire argument consists of, "Well it's not like 50% of the top 8s and it doesn't have creatures so that's really important!".This, for instance, is intellectual dishonesty! I say "15% of the top8s is not oppressive", and you replace this with the more dubious and easily discredited assertion "anything less than 50% is not oppressive".

This way you did not have to argue with me or my points - you can instead refute an exaggerated version of my views which I do not actuall hold. Classy!

[GundamGuy]

Then you are missing my point.

What I'm saying is that if Miracles has twice as many pilots as the that second deck, it's actually performing the same, not better. And this is true regardless of the motivations for playing the deck - its a fact of math!

Frankly though you do not be understand the methodology of the DTBF and have no business citing it in an argument. Wanna prove me wrong? I'll ask for the fourth or fifth time for you do address the quote in my SIG (taken from the banned list philosophy page) and reconcile it with you interpretation of DTBF data.

I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement. I have so far addressed every point you have made. You continually ignore this! It's incredibly obnoxious when you are investing time debating with somebody and they repeatedly ignore points you continually bring up. It also shows that you have no answer, but are unwilling to modify your view in light of evidence you can't refute.

If you want to continue you must step up your game and display some intellectual honesty.

1) Why assume every pilot is actually the same. Is magic a game with zero skill, and the outcome of matches is entirely deterministic and random?

2) I do understand the DTBF, what your mistaken on is assuming that you can be a deck to beat purely by having the most people play a deck. Hint, If I convinced 100 people to play Belcher for a month, it still won't be a DTB. (Blecher is as close to a coinflip as I can come up with) It's not enough to throw monkeys at type writers, because... and again I'm stress this, it's not a random draw, the probabilities of success isn't fixed, and isn't 100% determined by deck choice... there is some element of skill involved too. Your saying it's simply a numbers problem mathematically, when in fact that math is horribly off because you are trying to make non-random, and non-discrete probabilities, random and discrete.

3) "I don't think you can, because you view is at odds with that statement." No it's not. Your just treating all pilots and all players as if they are equal, when they aren't, and making many other mistakes... It's not like if 100 people play Miracles that each of those 100 people have an equally likely chance to win the tournament... if you think random pilot number 95 who just picked the deck up for the first time has exactly the same chance of winning as Joe Lossett then I don't know what to tell you... When you assume it's just a numbers game and that 50% of the decks played means you should get 50% of the top 8s that's what you are assuming...

When a deck is as successful and cheap as Miracles people of all skill levels are drawn to it. This is a downward force that contributes to why you don't see the "best deck" performing at or above it's percentage of the field, unless that deck is truly busted in half (think Vengvine, or Hulk Flash).

As to "Intellectual dishonesty"... I mean that's such a lazy way to dismiss things you disagree with.


Logistics has never been used in Legacy to ban out legitimate strategy.

False. Wizards has backed away from it in recent years, but it has been cited as a reason before.

[Crimhead]

2) I do understand the DTBF, what your mistaken on is assuming that you can be a deck to beat purely by having the most people play a deck. Then knidly explain how a deck that's not tier one can be a DTB? You can't explain this because you don't understand it! This might seem abrasive, but you continually ignore this request and change the subject. So prove me wrong, eh?


As to "Intellectual dishonesty"... I mean that's such a lazy way to dismiss things you disagree with.So calling intellectual dishonesty is bad forum, but calling somebody lazy is cool? :rolleyes: I'm not the person dismissing things. Answer the question I've asked you did times, or admit that you don't have an answer. You do this one thing, and I will resume adressing all your points. And note that I have not simply thrown the term around! I've used it twice, referring to your continuing ignoring of a question, and whats-his-name's sraw-man fallacy. That is apt use of the term.


False. Wizards has backed away from it in recent years, but it has been cited as a reason before.Citation required please. Note that I said " legitimate strategies". Shahrazard was not a legitimate strategy, and this is specifically noted in the associated banned announcement.

[Dice_Box]

Citation required please. Note that I said " legitimate strategies". Shahrazard was not a legitimate strategy, and this is specifically noted in the associated banned announcement.
Second Sunrise and Top.

[Raystar]

Edit: no need of more gasoline to the fire...

[Dice_Box]

In defence of Top its time issues really only exist in formats where Blue deck manipulation is not a thing. In Legacy most of the decks (ie not Miracles) that use the card at non Blue decks. The reason the card does not see more wide spread adoption is that Brainstorm and Ponder are better most of the time if you have access to them. The Reason top has issues in a format like Modern is that the water break does not exist. Why would people not just jam 4 into near on everything? You have nothing that is half as strong so you might as well just use top if you have it. Since that means there is a higher use, it becomes an issue due to miss use and over saturation. Legacy has different issues but Top is not one of them.

Not that the point doesn't hold up, cards have been band for logistics reasons and I could see that being what is sighted if the hammed came down on Top/Balance. It's not like it has not happened before.

[Crimhead]

Second Sunrise and Top.


Logistics has never been used in Legacy to ban out legitimate strategy.
I'm entirely not interested in the banned list philosophy of a format designed with kid gloves and training wheels; infamous for having onced banned a vanilla beater!

[Dice_Box]

I'm entirely not interested in the banned list philosophy of a format designed with kid gloves and training wheels; infamous for having onced banned a vanilla beater!
But the people who make the choices for that format make the choices for this one too. If they have shown a willingness to use constraints like time in 3 other formats (Vintage, Extended and Modern) then it's safe to assume that should they deem it necessary they will do the same to Legacy. I mean I they BANNED a card out of Vintage for this shit. You can say it was not a real strategy but think about that. BANNED a fucking Vintage card.

Just because Legacy is to this point untouched doesn't make it untouchable. And you can not care about the format you don't play, just think, those same people make the choices on our behalf too.

[Crimhead]

But the people who make the choices for that format make the choices for this one too.But they can tell the difference, and all evidence suggests a very different philosophy in handling Modern (a format sculpted for aggressive marketing) vs Legacy (an organic format with a hands-off approach which is becoming an obscure relic). They have different goals for these formats, and a different target player base.


I mean I they BANNED a card out of Vintage for this shit. You can say it was not a real strategy but think about that. BANNED a fucking Vintage card.I don't need to say it - they said it themselves!

Edit - I'm the first one to doubt WotC's honesty when explaining their decisions! Maybe Shahrazard was such a nightmare that it would have got the axe whether it was legitimate strategy or not; and maybe they thought that pretending that distinction mattered would go over better.

I think we can agree that Shahrazard is leaps and bounds worse than Top logistically. Shahrzard puts any board state on indefinite hold - most likely never to be relevant again. Top doesn't prevent a board state from (ever) advancing; it just slows the pace a little.


Just because Legacy is to this point untouched doesn't make it untouchable.WotC can always change their approach. In theory we could see Caleb's wish-list bannings tomorrow! But the fact remains, there is no precedent in eternal formats for legitimate strategies being banned out for logistic reasons.


The Reason top has issues in a format like Modern is that...Off topic, but most likely Top was banned for power reasons (regardless of the official "explanation"). How could a format where Preordain is considered OP ever accept such powerful deck manipulation as SDT?

[iatee]

When a deck is as successful and cheap as Miracles people of all skill levels are drawn to it. This is a downward force that contributes to why you don't see the "best deck" performing at or above it's percentage of the field, unless that deck is truly busted in half (think Vengvine, or Hulk Flash).
.

Historically, 'the best players' have been attracted to blue control strategies, across formats. This has been going on for 20 years now. So whenever a blue control deck is a t1 deck, it ends up being overrepresented by 'the best players'. Reactionary blue decks with a lot of answers give good players more room to leverage their skill and take advantage of mistakes - so leaning towards those decks is often rational decision and not purely just an issue of taste. You don't have a ton of room to outplay your opponent if you're playing Burn or Dredge (yes yes, not zero, just far less). And even D+T / Elves / Storm / Lands - T1 decks that require a lot of legacy experience and might be better situated for a given meta than Miracles - leave themselves more open to being outdrawn by a worse player + bad matchup.

But for a smaller tournament with no weak players to take advantage of - the recent SCG Players Champs - Miracles, despite being 'probably the best deck in legacy' was only an attractive choice for one player, who happens to be a God-like figure for the deck. Obviously that is a weird and super metagamed environment, but still, I think if we were in a period where there was a clearly oppressive deck or card in legacy, people going to one of the few tournaments w/ real money on the line would show up with it. I think 'the best players are attracted to difficult decks that give them a lot of flexibility to outplay their opponent' phenomenon probably led to Omni actually being underrepresented in the DTT era, relative to how consistent it was.

[GundamGuy]

Then knidly explain how a deck that's not tier one can be a DTB? You can't explain this because you don't understand it! This might seem abrasive, but you continually ignore this request and change the subject. So prove me wrong, eh?


If you want me to answer this question your first going to have to define what you mean by Tier 1, since there is NO actual commonly accpeted definition of what Tier 1 means. This is why the Source doesn't use the Tier 1 vs Tier 2 system, and isntead uses the DTB (Placement Points) system.

If you are arguging that by definition a DTB has to be Tier 1 because Tier 1 has been defined to be anything in the DTB, then congratulations on the tautology. Not much more to say here...

Here's what I said before... if you don't believe that Tier 1 and DTB are inhrently the same thing, it is entirely possible that a deck can spike a series of events in the period of a month and get enough placement points to break into the DTB... but then once it's known it falls off because it's not actually a Tier 1 deck... and was winning because it was preying on a specific meta or peoples ignorance of the deck or something equaly simple to adapt against.

Example: Is Elves actually Tier 1? Elves from time to time makes it into the DTB, but has no saying power and is out of the DTB more then it's in it?




So calling intellectual dishonesty is bad forum, but calling somebody lazy is cool? :rolleyes: I'm not the person dismissing things. Answer the question I've asked you did times, or admit that you don't have an answer. You do this one thing, and I will resume adressing all your points. And note that I have not simply thrown the term around! I've used it twice, referring to your continuing ignoring of a question, and whats-his-name's sraw-man fallacy. That is apt use of the term.

I've answered it about 4 times now. The fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem.

DTB isn't a pure numbers game. It's not monkeys playing magic, where you have enough of them play any deck and that deck becomes the DTB. Your belief, if I understand correctly, is that the actual raw power of a deck is secondary to the number of people playing it when it comes to top 8 results (and there for DTB placement points)... and that you have enough people (who you've assumed to be perfect subsitutes for each other) play a deck that deck will inherently put up enough results to score enough placement points to be a DTB. Yeah that's true if you make a lot of horrible assumptions (people are perfectly subsitutes, skill doesn't matter, and win%'s are fixed....) but here in the real world that's not how it actually works.

As more and more people play a deck the results curve bends due to the weight of skill, as you add more and more unskilled players the expected value falls... this doesn't mean the deck isn't oppressive, it means your saying a deck isn't oppressive because most people are noobs and don't know how to actually play magic...

I take this to mean that you only think a Deck is a problem if it's so easy to play that even noobs can pick it up and crush with it... (AKA a obviously broken two card combo that involves no skills tests).



Citation required please. Note that I said " legitimate strategies". Shahrazard was not a legitimate strategy, and this is specifically noted in the associated banned announcement.

I can't find the actual announcment, but in March of 1999 the DCI banned both Time Spiral and Memory Jar in Legacy. (Or what Legacy was at the time...) One of the reasons given if I remember correctly was logical issues related to how Time Spiral pushed rounds way late. You have to consider that at this time, that the win condition then was much slower.

Yes Time Spiral has been unbanned... but the precedent was set.


Historically, 'the best players' have been attracted to blue control strategies, across formats. This has been going on for 20 years now. So whenever a blue control deck is a t1 deck, it ends up being overrepresented by 'the best players'. Reactionary blue decks with a lot of answers give good players more room to leverage their skill and take advantage of mistakes - so leaning towards those decks is often rational decision and not purely just an issue of taste. You don't have a ton of room to outplay your opponent if you're playing Burn or Dredge (yes yes, not zero, just far less). And even D+T / Elves / Storm / Lands - T1 decks that require a lot of legacy experience and might be better situated for a given meta than Miracles - leave themselves more open to being outdrawn by a worse player + bad matchup.

But for a smaller tournament with no weak players to take advantage of - the recent SCG Players Champs - Miracles, despite being 'probably the best deck in legacy' was only an attractive choice for one player, who happens to be a God-like figure for the deck. Obviously that is a weird and super metagamed environment, but still, I think if we were in a period where there was a clearly oppressive deck or card in legacy, people going to one of the few tournaments w/ real money on the line would show up with it. I think 'the best players are attracted to difficult decks that give them a lot of flexibility to outplay their opponent' phenomenon probably led to Omni actually being underrepresented in the DTT era, relative to how consistent it was.

Bold = Mine.

I agree some what with your first point. I think the mistake in the logic here is that Miracles isn't a busted deck, it's not unfair like Hulk Flash, so it's better to stick to what you know. Skill is the biggest factor in legacy...

Mine and I think a lot of other peoples opinion here is that a deck doesn't have to be busted in half or unfair to be Oppressive.

I agree that Omni was actually underepresented, and was quite possibly the best deck in the format at the time.

[rufus]

Isn't the official justification for the Shahrazad banning 'subgame creation' rather than anything in particular that has to do with logistics (in other words, a categorical ban similar to the 'ante' and 'dexterity' bans)?

[iatee]

Looking at the lists, I was wrong actually, there was another Miracles player in the 16 at the SCG event. Still, I think whatever advantages it has as being the best-against-the-field deck in legacy weren't worth more to 14/16 players than the value of having a powerful metagame deck.

[GundamGuy]

Looking at the lists, I was wrong actually, there was another Miracles player in the 16 at the SCG event. Still, I think whatever advantages it has as being the best-against-the-field deck in legacy weren't worth more to 14/16 players than the value of having a powerful metagame deck.

I wouldn't read into it too much.

IMO what it tells me is something we already knew, that familiarity with your deck is really important in Legacy.

[btm10]

Shardless is the only tier one deck out of that list, and that matchup has become less unfavorable since the adoption of Monastery Mentor.

As someone who plays a lot of BGx decks and is particularly fond of Shardless, this is nonsense. The more people cut Entreat, Lands, and 3rd and 4th copies of Jace for Mentor and Predict, the better the matchup is for Shardless. Your sideboard cards get better, your card advantage plan gets better, playing "protect the queen" with Liliana gets better, and your creatures get better since they're coming at you with a bunch of non-evasive tokens and Mentor itself is often no bigger than Goyf.




Off topic, but most likely Top was banned for power reasons (regardless of the official "explanation"). How could a format where Preordain is considered OP ever accept such powerful deck manipulation as SDT?

This actually isn't that off topic. It's not a slam-dunk to say that Top was banned purely for power or logistical reasons in Extended or Modern. Kamigawa Standard was a well-publicized logistical nightmare at the time (at least one Pro Tour had 60 or 70 minute rounds to minimize the number of unintentional draws) and while Top wasn't the only guilty party there - Gifts was a major time suck too- it was a major learning experience for WotC and likely led to their willingness to ban cards for logistical reasons. This is also (effectively) why The Four Horsemen combo is 'soft banned' even though it's not very good - it's possible to execute the combo without stalling or slow playing, but even permissible execution of the combo is extremely time consuming and judges have received explicit instructions to be very strict when warning people playing the deck for slow play, and with good reason (even those who argue for loosening the rules for demonstrating loops generally concede that the combo is a problem under the current rules). Not taking them at their word reeks of conspiratorial thinking that isn't justified by the evidence. Their handling of Legacy and Vintage can be poorly informed, but it's rarely if ever done to steer the format in some preordained direction, and their biases are clearly toward doing nothing rather than something.

[Mr. Safety]

Nitpicking, but top and Gifts were both printed in Champions at the same time. Regardless, I got the gist of your post and I agree.

[btm10]

Nitpicking, but top and Gifts were both printed in Champions at the same time. Regardless, I got the gist of your post and I agree.

You're right. I thought that Top might've been in Betrayers when I wrote that, but I remember that Gifts Control was one of the most taxing Standard decks I ever played.

[Darkenslight]

You're right. I thought that Top might've been in Betrayers when I wrote that, but I remember that Gifts Control was one of the most taxing Standard decks I ever played.

The only other Standard-era decks that even comes close are likely Eminent Domain and Warp World combo.

[Crimhead]

If you want me to answer this question your first going to have to define what you mean by Tier 1, since there is NO actual commonly accpeted definition of what Tier 1 means. Tier one decks are a group of decks which ate better positioned in a given meta than any other decks. Obviously there is no precise definition as to where we distinguish between tier1 and tier2! But in this context, the idea is that there are decks listed in the DTBF which have made for reasons other than the quality of the deck.


I've answered it about 4 times now. The fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem...

...if you don't believe that Tier 1 and DTB are inhrently the same thing, it is entirely possible that a deck can spike a series of events in the period of a month and get enough placement points to break into the DTB... but then once it's known it falls off because it's not actually a Tier 1 deck... and was winning because it was preying on a specific meta or peoples ignorance of the deck or something equaly simple to adapt against. I think this is the only time you've actually answered this - you've taken stabs at my explanation, but have yet to offer one yourself. If I somehow missed it before, I owe you an apology.

I wanna split hairs a little. If a deck runs well but drops off when people learned to prepare for it, there are two possibilities:

People didn't understand what the deck did or how to play against it. In this case, the results are not owed to the decks inherent strength, but rather to poor play from the opposition. This is not a tier one deck!
The deck was actually very well positioned, but people have modified their card and/or deck selection to answer it. In this case I'd argue thst the deck was in fact (briefly) tier-one, but that there was a shift in the meta.



DTB isn't a pure numbers game. It's not monkeys playing magic, where you have enough of them play any deck and that deck becomes the DTB. Your belief, if I understand correctly, is that the actual raw power of a deck is secondary to the number of people playing it when it comes to top 8 results (and there for DTB placement points)... and that you have enough people (who you've assumed to be perfect subsitutes for each other) play a deck that deck will inherently put up enough results to score enough placement points to be a DTB. Yeah that's true if you make a lot of horrible assumptions (people are perfectly subsitutes, skill doesn't matter, and win%'s are fixed....) but here in the real world that's not how it actually works. I'm not under any such nonsensical notions (you must think I'm pretty thick, and I can only imagine your frustration). Obviously win-rates vary from match to match, and player to player.

However in mathematical theory land, every deck has an associated win-rate expected value. I say "in theory land" because we will never have the data to calculate this. We would need to accurately assess the win-rate of each MU, accounting for the probabilities each possible player-skill differential. We would need to know (with accuracy) the odds of each possible pairing; accounting for the different spread of decks at various stages of the event vs the chance of the deck in question making it to that level; as well as different stats for every possible variation of every possible archetype.

Of course in practise we will never know these numbers - even if we had all the information in the world and a super computer (like Dr Theo) to grind those numbers, there are probably not enough events in the world to give relaibe results. Nonetheless these stats do exist in theory. Once we accept this, tournaments are indeed "a numbers game". You like stats - you must have some respect for this?

As for player skill, I am (for the most part) unwilling to make any assumptions at all! In fact, I think you are the one who wants to assume that a lot of bad players chose Miracles!


As more and more people play a deck the results curve bends due to the weight of skill, as you add more and more unskilled players the expected value falls... this doesn't mean the deck isn't oppressive, it means your saying a deck isn't oppressive because most people are noobs and don't know how to actually play magic...If we see Miracles has twice as many tops as the next runner up, but we note that there were twice as many people playing it, I simply observe that Miracles is placing at the same rate as the other deck. You seem to want to assume that Miracles has more crappy pilots than the other deck, and that if we neutralised the skill levels Miracles would place at a much higher rate. To me this is speculative, baseless, and an Ad Hoc. Why do all the bad pilots play Miracles and not against Miracles?

Me I make no such assumptions! I figure every established deck has its share of noobs and pros. The more data we have, the more it should average out. Are Miracles players less proficient with their decks than other players? Maybe. On the other hand, maybe the best players are disproportionate attracted to Blue based hard control while newbs would rather turn dudes sideways? Either way, this sort of speculation has little or no place in our analysis.


Your belief, if I understand correctly, is that the actual raw power of a deck is secondary to the number of people playing it when it comes to top 8 results (and there for DTB placement points)...It's a mathematical function of the two. I define a decks raw power as it's theoretical expected win-rate as detailed above. If deckA sees more top8s (and DTB pps) than deckB, decks either has more raw power, more players, or both (unless we have valid reason to believe one deck has better pilots than the other).

So if one deck has enough raw power for a win-rate EV of 48%, but it has significantly more players than a deck with an EV of 55%, the first deck will earn significantly more DTBF pps despite being objectively worse. If those win-rate EVs are elusive and impossible to calculate with accuracy, well never know that the first deck is actually better - especially if we just look at the DTBF pps, and dismiss the higher player base because "people are playing the second deck because its better".


...I take this to mean that you only think a Deck is a problem if it's so easy to play that even noobs can pick it up and crush with it... (AKA a obviously broken two card combo that involves no skills tests).Not at all. I think a deck is a problem if it sees very high numbers and the format lacks diversity of play styles (play-style being defined by the manner inwhich decks interact with each other).


Mine and I think a lot of other peoples opinion here is that a deck doesn't have to be busted in half or unfair to be Oppressive. That's cool, but entirely subjective. What gets me is when people argue that Miracles is objectively oppressive!

There's a huge personal preference factor. Maybe there is somebody who loves Miracles mirrors, and would think Legacy is fine with just a few slight variations of a single archetype.

Of course this isn't my opinion! But I think 15% is nowhere near the point of oppression. What the exact number is, I can't say. I tolerate a higher number if that number is modest compared to the number of players pushing the deck. I also tolerate higher numbers if the deck adds something unique to the format. If 50% of the meta were Delver based tempo decks, I might want a ban even if the best such deck was only 10-12%.

Miracles is knd of unique in the meta, and we have a fairly good mix of tempo, midrange, combo, and control - and a variety of styles. A decent number of tier 1.5 decks can be very strong in the right meta (even a well established meta full of DTBs).

I just don't see anything unhealthy in the format. The only really legite complaints are that aggro is a bit weak (only Merfolk being very good), and that there aren't enough decks that can get around variance without running cantrips.

But I don't believe these are big issues, nor do I believe killing losing what I consider a unique control deck would fix these issues - or even be a good trade-off if it did. In close cases, I lean towards not bsnnng cards.

[GundamGuy]

Before the reply, I'll just say I think we are starting to get on the same page here.


Tier one decks are a group of decks which ate better positioned in a given meta than any other decks. Obviously there is no precise definition as to where we distinguish between tier1 and tier2! But in this context, the idea is that there are decks listed in the DTBF which have made for reasons other than the quality of the deck.

I think this is the only time you've actually answered this - you've taken stabs at my explanation, but have yet to offer one yourself. If I somehow missed it before, I owe you an apology.

I wanna split hairs a little. If a deck runs well but drops off when people learned to prepare for it, there are two possibilities:

People didn't understand what the deck did or how to play against it. In this case, the results are not owed to the decks inherent strength, but rather to poor play from the opposition. This is not a tier one deck!
The deck was actually very well positioned, but people have modified their card and/or deck selection to answer it. In this case I'd argue thst the deck was in fact (briefly) tier-one, but that there was a shift in the meta.

I'm not under any such nonsensical notions (you must think I'm pretty thick, and I can only imagine your frustration). Obviously win-rates vary from match to match, and player to player.

However in mathematical theory land, every deck has an associated win-rate expected value. I say "in theory land" because we will never have the data to calculate this. We would need to accurately assess the win-rate of each MU, accounting for the probabilities each possible player-skill differential. We would need to know (with accuracy) the odds of each possible pairing; accounting for the different spread of decks at various stages of the event vs the chance of the deck in question making it to that level; as well as different stats for every possible variation of every possible archetype.

Of course in practise we will never know these numbers - even if we had all the information in the world and a super computer (like Dr Theo) to grind those numbers, there are probably not enough events in the world to give relaibe results. Nonetheless these stats do exist in theory. Once we accept this, tournaments are indeed "a numbers game". You like stats - you must have some respect for this?

As for player skill, I am (for the most part) unwilling to make any assumptions at all! In fact, I think you are the one who wants to assume that a lot of bad players chose Miracles!

If we see Miracles has twice as many tops as the next runner up, but we note that there were twice as many people playing it, I simply observe that Miracles is placing at the same rate as the other deck. You seem to want to assume that Miracles has more crappy pilots than the other deck, and that if we neutralised the skill levels Miracles would place at a much higher rate. To me this is speculative, baseless, and an Ad Hoc. Why do all the bad pilots play Miracles and not against Miracles?

Me I make no such assumptions! I figure every established deck has its share of noobs and pros. The more data we have, the more it should average out. Are Miracles players less proficient with their decks than other players? Maybe. On the other hand, maybe the best players are disproportionate attracted to Blue based hard control while newbs would rather turn dudes sideways? Either way, this sort of speculation has little or no place in our analysis.

It's a mathematical function of the two. I define a decks raw power as it's theoretical expected win-rate as detailed above. If deckA sees more top8s (and DTB pps) than deckB, decks either has more raw power, more players, or both (unless we have valid reason to believe one deck has better pilots than the other).

So if one deck has enough raw power for a win-rate EV of 48%, but it has significantly more players than a deck with an EV of 55%, the first deck will earn significantly more DTBF pps despite being objectively worse. If those win-rate EVs are elusive and impossible to calculate with accuracy, well never know that the first deck is actually better - especially if we just look at the DTBF pps, and dismiss the higher player base because "people are playing the second deck because its better".

Not at all. I think a deck is a problem if it sees very high numbers and the format lacks diversity of play styles (play-style being defined by the manner inwhich decks interact with each other).

That's cool, but entirely subjective. What gets me is when people argue that Miracles is objectively oppressive!

There's a huge personal preference factor. Maybe there is somebody who loves Miracles mirrors, and would think Legacy is fine with just a few slight variations of a single archetype.


I did not mean to imply that Miracles has more noobs then other decks.

The point I was attempting to make is that every deck rewards skilled play, but not every deck do so to the same extent. Another way to put this is I think some decks rewared skilled play more then others. Now I think this is often overstated or understated... people often understate skill when it comes to non-blue decks (Just turn dudes sideways) and over state it when it comes to Blue decks... but in the case of miracles I think it's actually very true that a skilled player has a much better chance of success then a non-skilled player.

It's for that reason that I think this is actually wrong.


So if one deck has enough raw power for a win-rate EV of 48%, but it has significantly more players than a deck with an EV of 55%, the first deck will earn significantly more DTBF pps despite being objectively worse


This is true if you don't peel back the layers and consider why the decks expected value rate is only 48%? Because Miracles is so skill testing and has a very steep skill - win ratio curve, it could be that the large number of players are dragging the EV down. I believe it's possible that if only the 10 best miracles players were allowed to play miracles we'd see Miracles Top 8's only slighty decline.

OPINION: Miracles has one of the steepst Skill - Win Ratio curves of any legacy deck in a long time. Perhaps only Doomsday is steeper...

This is what I why I feel that pointing to Miracles Top8's vs % of field is a bit misleading, and that in general this way of thinking about things doesn't account for one of the biggest factors in legacy... skill.


Of course this isn't my opinion! But I think 15% is nowhere near the point of oppression. What the exact number is, I can't say. I tolerate a higher number if that number is modest compared to the number of players pushing the deck. I also tolerate higher numbers if the deck adds something unique to the format. If 50% of the meta were Delver based tempo decks, I might want a ban even if the best such deck was only 10-12%.

Miracles is knd of unique in the meta, and we have a fairly good mix of tempo, midrange, combo, and control - and a variety of styles. A decent number of tier 1.5 decks can be very strong in the right meta (even a well established meta full of DTBs).

I just don't see anything unhealthy in the format. The only really legite complaints are that aggro is a bit weak (only Merfolk being very good), and that there aren't enough decks that can get around variance without running cantrips.

But I don't believe these are big issues, nor do I believe killing losing what I consider a unique control deck would fix these issues - or even be a good trade-off if it did. In close cases, I lean towards not bsnnng cards.

I see your point of view, and of course on point of view questions this is going to be entirely subjective.

IMO: Miracles is unique in the meta, because it's eating the lunch of all the other decks that would normally be filling that role. I also think that barring banning Brainstorm, Ponder, or Force of Will, there will alwasy be a unique control deck in Legacy. The control shell has alwasy been pretty good, and alwasy will be... the card selection, coutners, and removal are all too good (even without Terminus, Top, or Counterbalance) for there to not be a unique control deck in legacy.

And again I know this is subjective and you are happy with the mix of tempo, midrange, combo, and control in legacy, but I personally think it's actually pretty flat right now.

Also IMO, if Merfolk is the best Aggro deck right now, then frankly there is no good aggro deck, because Merfolk is not a good deck.

[Ellomdian]

Looking at the lists, I was wrong actually, there was another Miracles player in the 16 at the SCG event. Still, I think whatever advantages it has as being the best-against-the-field deck in legacy weren't worth more to 14/16 players than the value of having a powerful metagame deck.

I would be careful using a very inbred (by design) event to extrapolate data. A quarter of the field was on Grixis Delver, and 3 people were on Death and Taxes (and could just have easily been on Infect...)

[iatee]

Sure it's inbred, but it's still an event where people could reasonably expect to face nothing but strong players playing t1 legacy decks and were playing for real money. As 'probably the best deck in legacy, and the one with the most generalized answers', you're not going to be that punished for showing up with it, it's not like anyone was gonna show up with 12 Post.

But it still isn't so much better than any other T1 deck that these guys were throwing money away by not showing up with 'the best deck'. There are metas where the best deck is so much clearly better that you either show up with it or show up with the deck designed to beat it, and we're not there in legacy.

[GundamGuy]

it's not like anyone was gonna show up with 12 Post.

Maybe someone should have....

[oarsman]

Three points aimed at the people wanting Top banned:

If your goal is to get rid of Miracles, banning Counterbalance is the better way to go. Top is actually used in some other decks whereas Counterbalance is worthless by itself. Losing either one will wipe out Miracles. It isn't dropping to tier 2 like some people have argued before. It will disappear without the combo.

If judges enforced slow play at events, the time issue would mostly go away. It would still come up occasionally, but a lot of the players piling up draws would be the inexperienced ones. People more accustomed to the deck would learn to play it faster when they were finally forced to do so. I am not a counterexample here, since while I have more experience than anybody I still frequently play slowly. On numerous occasions I have told judges that I deserve a slow play warning and they still will not penalize me. But if forced to play faster, I would.

Finally, the number one reason why players hate miracles is because they drag out the process of dying. On storm's combo turn, a player may die over the course of two minutes. Against miracles many people are effectively dead, but continue playing for 10 minutes before actually getting killed. So in both cases the player lost a single game, but one feels much worse because the funeral lasted five times as long. This is common for control decks in all formats, but the psychological effect takes a long time to get used to. I believe this is why experienced players do not hate control decks to the degree that newer players do.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

Three points aimed at the people wanting Top banned:

If your goal is to get rid of Miracles, banning Counterbalance is the better way to go. Top is actually used in some other decks whereas Counterbalance is worthless by itself. Losing either one will wipe out Miracles. It isn't dropping to tier 2 like some people have argued before. It will disappear without the combo.

I'd love to know if Forbid-LFTL would be viable in a non-CB world. Life could be used as a CA/CQ engine and it makes sure that the control player won't miss land drops.Sure it's not the best play to LFTL on turn2, and Forbid is too mana-intensive compared to CB/Top, but it's the best that I can come with in case I'd have to find a Countertop surrogate.

Some kind of old UGw control might take a Miracles' place in case the deck would be killed by banhammer.

[Dice_Box]

There are much better things you can do with Loam then use it is a discard engine. Plus why not run Squee?

[Deckerator]

Do you think ban Terminus would weaken miracles but doesnt destroy it?
I think a boardwipe for 1 is a way too strong.

[GundamGuy]

Do you think ban Terminus would weaken miracles but doesnt destroy it?
I think a boardwipe for 1 is a way too strong.

Yes, CounterTop is a deck that existed long before Terminus was printed. The way I see it, Miracles is just the evolution of CounterTop with added Miracles Cards.

If Terminus did not exist CoutnterTop would still be a deck, would likely still run Entreat or Monastery Mentor (instead of Thoper Foundry / Sword, which was the the kill of choice back in the old days), and look 90% the same. I would imagine it would still be viable if they had to pay 4 mana for there uncounterable wrath of gods instead of 1 mana for their hallowed burials.

It would totally lose ground to some match-ups though.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

There are much better things you can do with Loam then use it is a discard engine. Plus why not run Squee?

Becasue Squee can't return fetches/Wasteland, it cannot be used with cycling lands, etc. I'm not saying that Loam-Forbid combination is extremely powerful, but in case CB/Top ceases to be a factor, this might be used IF the deck would be designed to abuse Loam in another ways. I think that UBG Control was a played deck, someone from Source had a great success with it and the Loam package was used.

[iatee]

If judges enforced slow play at events, the time issue would mostly go away. It would still come up occasionally, but a lot of the players piling up draws would be the inexperienced ones. People more accustomed to the deck would learn to play it faster when they were finally forced to do so. I am not a counterexample here, since while I have more experience than anybody I still frequently play slowly. On numerous occasions I have told judges that I deserve a slow play warning and they still will not penalize me. But if forced to play faster, I would.


For the record - I like Miracles as a deck, and enjoy watching you stream it, I don't think Miracles is overpowered relative to other blue decks. But I do think that Top is a terrible card for competitive paper tournaments and there's no easy way to fix that, absent chess clocks or something. Realistically there is no way to enforce slow play uniformly across a large tournament. There aren't enough judges to ensure that every Top activation is being monitored, there isn't an accepted amount of time for a Top activation. If judges were more actively calling people on slow play, players on both sides of the table would be just as frustrated as they are now because the calls will feel too arbitrary. One Miracles player gets called for a 25 second Top activation, the guy next to him doesn't get called for a 30 second Top activation that nobody saw etc. etc.

[death]

Format needs a reboot.

Take out Delver, Counterbalance and Terminus.

It took years for Trinisphere and Chalice of the Void to get restricted, there is hope.

[Lysandros]

I'm not a fan of banning cards, I'd rather see stuff unbanned...but Terminus...c'mon WOTC. CounterTop is fine. Terminus, however, invalidates decks almost single-handedly.

[Dice_Box]

It took years for Trinisphere and Chalice of the Void to get restricted, there is hope.
Took 13 months for 3sphere to eat it's restriction. Not exactly "Years". Chalice I have my own views on, but if you want those talk to me on TMD.

While I would agree the format needs a kick, uncaging Survival I feel is more of an option then booting something many people have sunk a ton of money into out of the format.

[Stevestamopz]

While I would agree the format needs a kick, uncaging Survival I feel is more of an option then booting something many people have sunk a ton of money into out of the format.

If they won't ban the uber-bullshit Show and Tell, then I agree with you Dice, they should up the power level across the board- unban all the dreck (mind twist) and while they're at it give us some game-changers. Let's have Survival and Goblin Recruiter back. Hell give us Balance, I want to see what a deck making the most of 4x Balance looks like.

Just change something in a meaningful way.

[Dice_Box]

Balance... Yea... No. Let's keep this sane. I agree with the rest though.