All B/R update speculation.

[Megadeus]

Is Echo of Eon not sufficient ?

Blue will still be dominating the field, but it will definitely produce a new tier 1 deck.

Not sufficient for what? Card has been legal a couple weeks and I haven't seen a deck with the card dominating yet

[mistercakes]

I think he means the ability to mull better into LED + echo hands for consistency.

[H]

Not sufficient for what? Card has been legal a couple weeks and I haven't seen a deck with the card dominating yet

I think Echo is decent, but Wrenn and Six will likely have more lasting, long-term impact on the format at this moment.

[Dice_Box]

I am all for killing a 3 drop blue card. TNN, you are the weakest link... go die.

[alvoi]

I am all for killing a 3 drop blue card. TNN, you are the weakest link... go die.

Yeah, that's a card too wrong to be legal. I hope it will be banned soon

[H]

It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."

Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous... :rolleyes:

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."

Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous... :rolleyes:

You're right, we should use objective measures and ban brainstorm.

[H]

You're right, we should use objective measures and ban brainstorm.

Mmm, yeah, lets do this again for a few hundred more pages.

What are these "objective measures" and how/when do we employ them, pray tell?

[Mr. Safety]

Meh, I'm pretty happy with the shakeup that Modern Horizons and War of the Spark are putting into Legacy. I genuinely believe we'll eventually get Earthcraft and Mind Twist unbanned, SFM and others in Modern, once nobody really cares to discuss the banlist anymore. We're close to that now with the new mulligan rule and powerful new sets.

[H]

We're close to that now with the new mulligan rule and powerful new sets.

It's my hypothesis that the London Mulligan will shift "consistency" from "Cantrip-derived" to "Cantrip-derived proportional to game length." Which, I think is really what it likely "makes sense to be." That is, the logic of answering the question of, "why more "threats" vs. consistency-generative-things to find threats?"

It won't be a massive shift, but I have not seen why as a massive shift is necessitated.

Obviously results will substantiate this or not, we'll see as it goes along.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Mmm, yeah, lets do this again for a few hundred more pages.

What are these "objective measures" and how/when do we employ them, pray tell?

Scroll back a few pages from the last time that quote from MaRo was posted. Brainstorm should be banned, but it never will be because it turns out banning isn't an objective science and all about the fee fees.

[H]

Scroll back a few pages from the last time that quote from MaRo was posted. Brainstorm should be banned, but it never will be because it turns out banning isn't an objective science and all about the fee fees.

Well, then scroll back a few more pages and see that I already said that it cannot be of any "one mode" or even just of two, or three.

[Dice_Box]

It sure is convenient that the criterion for Banning something is: "that it is that which does not appeal to my taste."

Other wise, things sure would be ambiguous... :rolleyes:
Oh I am aware that the card is not egregious enough on its own to eat a ban and likely never will. That does not mean I do not think it should be legal to play against. Cards have eaten bans in the past because they are not enjoyable to play against and TNN fits that bill. Granted those bannings where in Modern.

To flesh out my point though, I feel the cards effect upon the game is not just about taste, it has a negative impact upon the games in which it is in play. Its massive reduction in interactivity is rather anathema to the way we are use to playing and I have not seen many people who find the change from the normal flow it inflicts to be positive.

In plain speak, if it dodges all of your creatures and your Swords, its not a lot of fun to play against.

[H]

To flesh out my point though, I feel the cards effect upon the game is not just about taste, it has a negative impact upon the games in which it is in play. Its massive reduction in interactivity is rather anathema to the way we are use to playing and I have not seen many people who find the change from the normal flow it inflicts to be positive.

Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree. And to some extent every Storm card ever printed. Except the fact that Storm is "old" and so we are "used to it." That sort of appeal to a sort "Historicism," that is, in the sense of simply having been as a justification for why it should be, is, to put it flatly, nonsense though.

As a matter of fact, I have never once advocated for a ban on Tendrils or any Storm card, nor would I ever. Nor should I ever.

TNN is a shit card and a shit design. It, however, is not ban worthy as far as I can tell, because I do, categorically, reject the notion of "banning for taste." I don't refute that it has, or might have occurred as a reason for something, but I think that is a shit policy, or at least a flatly terrible rationale to do anything in-and-of itself.

[Dice_Box]

Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree.
I disagree. One of the cards is a three drop that asks little of the player other than be in Blue and want creatures, the other asks you to build your whole shell around the card and then take massive risks in game against a lot of wide and varied sideboard hate.

[Watersaw]

Ironically enough, all of that applies to Tendril of Agony, in my mind, to a greater degree. And to some extent every Storm card ever printed. Except the fact that Storm is "old" and so we are "used to it." That sort of appeal to a sort "Historicism," that is, in the sense of simply having been as a justification for why it should be, is, to put it flatly, nonsense though.

As a matter of fact, I have never once advocated for a ban on Tendrils or any Storm card, nor would I ever. Nor should I ever.

TNN is a shit card and a shit design. It, however, is not ban worthy as far as I can tell, because I do, categorically, reject the notion of "banning for taste." I don't refute that it has, or might have occurred as a reason for something, but I think that is a shit policy, or at least a flatly terrible rationale to do anything in-and-of itself.

I think this is actually a good point. The viability of any strategy is inversely proportionate to you opponent's ability to meaningfully interact. I'm absolutely in love with Enchantress builds, there are a lot of cards that might as well not have text against the deck. You know what sucks? When Abrupt Decay and Narset are all over the place and suddenly I have to care about what my opponent is doing.

At what point does this become "unfun" enough to warrant a ban and does a hyper-focused shell excuse that? Hell if I know, but it does suck that the best 3-drop creature costs 1UU.

[H]

I disagree. One of the cards is a three drop that asks little of the player other than be in Blue and want creatures, the other asks you to build your whole shell around the card and then take massive risks in game against a lot of wide and varied sideboard hate.

There are not a "variety" of answers to remove a True-Name? Of course there are, from Edicts, to wraths and sweepers of various kinds (and other things too).

The fact of Storms "build around" nature seems like a total non sequitur. What does it relate here? That a Storm deck needs a Storm card as it's pay-off? That is nothing but a tautology.

There are plenty of decks that have little access to "good" sideboard hate for Storm, because of color restraints or simply the lack of ability to land them in time for them to be relevant. We simply say, "that is a bad match-up" and move on with our lives. Why? Because what you already pointed out, this appeal to the "historical" nature of Storm having been as a justification for being.

If I play something like Death and Taxes, or whatever, I can safely assume that I can and likely will lose on turn one to Storm some amount of time, regardless of what I sideboard (yes, even with Mindbreak Traps). Now, with Death and Taxes again, I too can assume that I can and will lose to True-Name some amount of time, yet, I am afforded (in all likelyhood) a vast amount of time to attempt to "prevent" this outcome, or even to simply try to "race it." "Hard to interact with" is a relative term, as a matter of course, and so claiming that a creature that does not interact with most spells or abilities is bad, where a spell which most spells or abilities don't interact with is fine is a very creative stance to me, to say the least.

You can try to twist the nature and interpretation of what "interaction" means to suit your own thesis at will. But that doesn't make it more a more factual claim. I find it hard to do the sort of metal gymnastics required to imagine that True-Name "warps" the nature of how a Magic game plays out more than Storm does. At the very least, I guess we could see it as "analogous" (there could be no equivalence, as the cards are so dissimilar), but to say that True-Name is more so takes a stance I have no idea how to begin to understand.

But hey, you do whatever sort of thing appeases your notion of "reason" and I'll do mine. :wink:

[H]

I think this is actually a good point. The viability of any strategy is inversely proportionate to you opponent's ability to meaningfully interact. I'm absolutely in love with Enchantress builds, there are a lot of cards that might as well not have text against the deck. You know what sucks? When Abrupt Decay and Narset are all over the place and suddenly I have to care about what my opponent is doing.

At what point does this become "unfun" enough to warrant a ban and does a hyper-focused shell excuse that? Hell if I know, but it does suck that the best 3-drop creature costs 1UU.

Well, if we imagine things to be a sort of "Rock-Paper-Scissors" match, True-Name certainly does violate a certain sense we might have, in being "unfair." "I've included "Rock" (removal) in my deck, why am I lose to Scissors (creatures)?" But what makes Magic at all interesting, perhaps to a mistaken notion of mine, is that is is not a "Rock-Paper-Scissors" match. Even Nimble Mongoose is played for this very reason, it just does not "violate" other seeming senses of "symmetry."

But Storm (and other strategies that "force" interaction on a "narrow" axis) are much the same in this regard, if not more so. But again, people are very apt (myself included) toward confirmation bias and the notion that things they "like" or "don't mind" are justifiable, where things they don't "are not justifiable."

[Dice_Box]

There are not a "variety" of answers to remove a True-Name? Of course there are, from Edicts, to wraths and sweepers of various kinds (and other things too).
Is there really? If your in the wrong colours your answers are really really limited. Red and Green have very few outs, white has a few dedicated ones. So if your in Black or Blue your ok? Thats not great for open gameplay. Unlike Storm that can get really badly hurt by colourless cards.


The fact of Storms "build around" nature seems like a total non sequitur. What does it relate here? That a Storm deck needs a Storm card as it's pay-off? That is nothing but a tautology.
Its a point about ease of use casing the issue with TNN. Progen is much much more powerful and does much the same thing as TNN, but if Elves lands it you do not feel overly cheated. You have to put in work to pull off that effect. TNN asks very little of its players, that is part of what makes it so painful. ANT asks for you to jump though a ton of hoops, thus changing the feels when someone dies to it.


There are plenty of decks that have little access to "good" sideboard hate for Storm, because of color restraints or simply the lack of ability to land them in time for them to be relevant. We simply say, "that is a bad match-up" and move on with our lives. Why? Because what you already pointed out, this appeal to the "historical" nature of Storm having been as a justification for being.
Sphere, 3 Ball, Thorn, Chalice, Thalia, Eidolon, Force, Discard and grave hate are all very common answers to the deck. Well maybe not that common for Eidolon. Still, most colours have an answer that sees rather wide play. Not just two colours. Also there is a wide range of colourless answers that Storm will bring in bounce effects to adapt to.


If I play something like Death and Taxes, or whatever, I can safely assume that I can and likely will lose on turn one to Storm some amount of time, regardless of what I sideboard (yes, even with Mindbreak Traps). Now, with Death and Taxes again, I too can assume that I can and will lose to True-Name some amount of time, yet, I am afforded (in all likelyhood) a vast amount of time to attempt to "prevent" this outcome, or even to simply try to "race it." "Hard to interact with" is a relative term, as a matter of course, and so claiming that a creature that does not interact with most spells or abilities is bad, where a spell which most spells or abilities don't interact with is fine is a very creative stance to me, to say the least.
DnT I find has a decent ability to race a lot of the decks with TNN, but again, Its not Blue or Black so... sucks to be you I guess.


You can try to twist the nature and interpretation of what "interaction" means to suit your own thesis at will. But that doesn't make it more a more factual claim. I find it hard to do the sort of metal gymnastics required to imagine that True-Name "warps" the nature of how a Magic game plays out more than Storm does. At the very least, I guess we could see it as "analogous" (there could be no equivalence, as the cards are so dissimilar), but to say that True-Name is more so takes a stance I have no idea how to begin to understand.
Twist? Twist? Really? I was thinking everything was fun as a talk up until this but really... I am not the first to state this card lacks interaction, is hard to interact with or makes the games that it hits the table far far less enjoyable because it lacks interaction. I am not the first, nor am I the only person to make this claim and it is correct. TNN reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me." Personally I find your claim that I am twisting a words FACTUAL meaning rather insulting.

Also look up and find the line where I said it was not doing enough to get banned. Maybe you should read what I write before you start insulting me.

[Michael Keller]

I'm okay with Mind Twist in Legacy. I mean, it's a discard spell. It requires an investment, and honestly, if you're looking to play the discard game and tap out to play a sorcery speed spell for >3 mana (which is also the equivalent of Hymn at three mana), is it really that big of a deal?

[Megadeus]

I'm okay with Mind Twist in Legacy. I mean, it's a discard spell. It requires an investment, and honestly, if you're looking to play the discard game and tap out to play a sorcery speed spell for >3 mana (which is also the equivalent of Hymn at three mana), is it really that big of a deal?
Something something dark rituals something something not fun something something adds nothing

[Dice_Box]

Thats a card that was banned because of its effects when paired with Jewellery. Seeing as thats never been an issue in Legacy... Quaint.

[H]

Is there really? If your in the wrong colours your answers are really really limited. Red and Green have very few outs, white has a few dedicated ones. So if your in Black or Blue your ok? Thats not great for open gameplay. Unlike Storm that can get really badly hurt by colourless cards.

Of course, if you are in the "wrong colors" a variety of things can flatly screw you in Magic. Sure, there are Colorless cards that can impact Storm, but there are also colorless cards that can impact a True-Name. In an "average" case, which do you feel more likely to be able to deploy effectively?


Its a point about ease of use casing the issue with TNN. Progen is much much more powerful and does much the same thing as TNN, but if Elves lands it you do not feel overly cheated. You have to put in work to pull off that effect. TNN asks very little of its players, that is part of what makes it so painful. ANT asks for you to jump though a ton of hoops, thus changing the feels when someone dies to it.

Sure, again, I never said True-Name was great design. It doesn't "ask much" but really, to say that ANT or TES "jumps through a tons of hoops" is really rather disengenuous to me, because I don't see what cards in a Storm deck would be a "hoop." The Cantrips, the Tutors, the Discard? All of those go directly toward the aim of building the right spell count/consistency, finding the pay off, or cutting off prospective interaction. Which is really the same thing almost every deck is doing.


Sphere, 3 Ball, Thorn, Chalice, Thalia, Eidolon, Force, Discard and grave hate are all very common answers to the deck. Well maybe not that common for Eidolon. Still, most colours have an answer that sees rather wide play. Not just two colours. Also there is a wide range of colourless answers that Storm will bring in bounce effects to adapt to.

Now I am confused as to what you are even saying about "not just 2 colors." Again, return to my above response, where I am pointing out that part of the "narrowness" of interacting with Storm, as a mechanic and a deck, is not just about presence of "answers" but about the velocity to effectively deploy them. That rarely applies to True-Name.


DnT I find has a decent ability to race a lot of the decks with TNN, but again, Its not Blue or Black so... sucks to be you I guess.

I have no idea what this means.


Twist? Twist? Really? I was thinking everything was fun as a talk up until this but really... I am not the first to state this card lacks interaction, is hard to interact with or makes the games that it hits the table far far less enjoyable because it lacks interaction. I am not the first, nor am I the only person to make this claim and it is correct. TNN reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me." Personally I find your claim that I am twisting a words FACTUAL meaning rather insulting.

Also look up and find the line where I said it was not doing enough to get banned. Maybe you should read what I write before you start insulting me.

Draw your inference as you will. I was not out to insult you, but take of it what you'd like.

The issue at hand is that we are talking about things that as a general manner of course are not easy to define. So, indeed, we'd both be apt to "interpret" (if you like that word better) what "interaction" is or is not, or what the "acceptable" level of it is or is not.

You say, with True-Name, "reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me." Fair enough, but what does Storm do do overall interaction?

[H]

Something something dark rituals something something not fun something something adds nothing

Yeah, I mean, the only acceptable thing to do with a Dark Ritual is cast Tendrils of Agony and kill you, not cast a discard spell like some sort of savage barbarian from the 8th century. :wink:

[Megadeus]

Yeah, I mean, the only acceptable thing to do with a Dark Ritual is cast Tendrils of Agony and kill you, not cast a discard spell like some sort of savage barbarian from the 8th century. :wink:

I would love to see a fair dark ritual deck emerge. Plague engineer is pretty fucking sick

[H]

I would love to see a fair dark ritual deck emerge. Plague engineer is pretty fucking sick

Unfortunately, I think it could be the case that the only way to beat the "inherent fact" of how bad Ritual into non-Storm card is vs counter spells, that they only way to really leverage it and not find yourself on the wrong side of a blowout, is to do something "unfair" (i.e. Storm) with it.

I wish it weren't the case either, because I love Ritual, but have no love for Storm. But there is likely a "further fact" that any "fair card" is likely too "easily" answered by today's suites of "optimized" removal. I mean, I guess one could DRit out some Lili's, but one likely still loses too hard to counter magic, as perhaps Pox does.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Well, then scroll back a few more pages and see that I already said that it cannot be of any "one mode" or even just of two, or three.
This post is incomprehensible.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I would love to see a fair dark ritual deck emerge. Plague engineer is pretty fucking sick

Except the whole point of a card like dark ritual is to not be fair. It's to jump ahead on the curve.

[Michael Keller]

Something something dark rituals something something not fun something something adds nothing

But this is 2019, not 1994. I played during that period.

If someone double-Dark Rituals into a Mind Twist, good for them.

You know, they could just double-Dark Ritual into Ad Nauseam and win the game right then and there, too.

[H]

This post is incomprehensible.

Seemingly as incomprehensible as yours, but I'll be charitable:


Well, that's sort of the key, in the sense that the List isn't (and really should not be) derived from one methodology of construction.

A List based off "pure" Empiricism, would be tyrannical and awful, since any card that it at all good would inevitably be banned. A "pure" Rationalist approach is also terrible, since we really could not say what the practical results would be. A "pure" Economic one would also be horrible, since it would be swayed by numerous factors outside the scope of Legacy. A "purely" Historical, or Historicism, List would be absolute nonsense, since past performance is not indicative of future results in a contingent sense. A "purely" Perceptual List, that is, one that is one made considering only what the format appears to be, say by public information of top 8 results, would also be tyranical, since it fails to encompass the whole of the metagame dynamic.

So, what we actually get is some sort of "seemingly random" mish-mosh of all those things, plus, the confounding factor of whatever might qualify "Subjective perception" on behalf of the people who make the decisions as well. And all of these factors will not be "evenly applied" to all cases, which is likely the "best" approach, but one that could (and does) confound our collective interpretations.

Note that I am not particularly good with words, and "empirical" in this sense means data-driven, in the sense of, say, raw percentage of top 8 results, or "number of decks present in."

[Megadeus]

But this is 2019, not 1994. I played during that period.

If someone double-Dark Rituals into a Mind Twist, good for them.

You know, they could just double-Dark Ritual into Ad Nauseam and win the game right then and there, too.

Just want to say that I was being facetious. I was just "quoting" all the normal arguments against the card that people bring up when they talk about the card being overpowered or unfun. Card is clearly fine for the reasons you (and I in the past) have stated

[Mr. Safety]

It's my hypothesis that the London Mulligan will shift "consistency" from "Cantrip-derived" to "Cantrip-derived proportional to game length." Which, I think is really what it likely "makes sense to be." That is, the logic of answering the question of, "why more "threats" vs. consistency-generative-things to find threats?"

It won't be a massive shift, but I have not seen why as a massive shift is necessitated.

Obviously results will substantiate this or not, we'll see as it goes along.

Sorry for chiming in so late, just want to bring attention to this excellent post. I think this shift in paradigm could reshape the discussion surrounding bans, and I think for the better.

[Michael Keller]

Just want to say that I was being facetious. I was just "quoting" all the normal arguments against the card that people bring up when they talk about the card being overpowered or unfun. Card is clearly fine for the reasons you (and I in the past) have stated

Oh, okay lol wasn’t sure!

[H]

Sorry for chiming in so late, just want to bring attention to this excellent post. I think this shift in paradigm could reshape the discussion surrounding bans, and I think for the better.

If only, but we (seemingly) end up finding ourselves back in the same trite conversations over and over for what, 1077 pages.

If I was smart, maybe I could help steer things in a constructive direction, but maybe it's my general stupidity, maybe it's people's unwillingness to consider different perspectives, maybe people just really like to have something to complain about. Like someone who I can't remember once said on TMD about Vintage (might have been BrassMan) "no one wants to talk about the actual available card pool, only about hypothetical [ideal] card pools."

I think Legacy is in a good place right now and if it weren't for work, home and health demands, I'd be playing as much as I possibly could right now. London Mulligan and two big stacks of cards of cards I've gotten from WAR and Modern Horizons has me very excited to get back to playing in the near future.

[talpa]

When Dice_Box speaks you surely find interesting things. TNN may be a "bad taste" card but at least try to use some real argument.




There are not a "variety" of answers to remove a True-Name? Of course there are, from Edicts, to wraths and sweepers of various kinds (and other things too).
Is there really? If your in the wrong colours your answers are really really limited. Red and Green have very few outs, white has a few dedicated ones. So if your in Black or Blue your ok? [your: sic] (...)
just two colours.(...)
Also there is a wide range of colourless answers [to] Storm

It's really funny that in your hatred against black and blue you left out white.
As if Terminus wasn't one of the best answers to TNN. Or Council's Judgement. Or Supreme Verdicts or Wraths.
By the way, Red has a way to interact with TNN on the stack, they are called Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast. Which I supposte it's the exact way blue has to interact with it (counter it on the stack).
Green at least can always race it, I suspect elves for example can always ignore it. Or if you want to point out a fair card: Hoothing Mandrills.
Or maybe you'd like colorless answers: what about Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale? What about Meakstone? Ensnaring Bridge? Blast Zone?



Progen is much much more powerful and does much the same thing as TNN, but if Elves lands it you do not feel overly cheated. You have to put in work to pull off that effect
Oh yeah, I suppose paying four mana (two green) and a creature is WAAAAAY more troublesome than paying three mana (two blue), and 10 power worth is clearly way less than three.



TNN reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me."
Which is indeed very much more than you can say to storm, for example: "can you make me discard it or counter all copy of it? No, then die"

I am not asking for a ban of storm, nor am I denying TNN can be hard to interact with. I am just pointing out what a wonderful example of honest discussion it was

[Dice_Box]

Draw your inference as you will. I was not out to insult you, but take of it what you'd like.

The issue at hand is that we are talking about things that as a general manner of course are not easy to define. So, indeed, we'd both be apt to "interpret" (if you like that word better) what "interaction" is or is not, or what the "acceptable" level of it is or is not.

You say, with True-Name, "reduces overall interaction to "Can you make me sac it or can you counter it? No, then race me." Fair enough, but what does Storm do do overall interaction?
I am just going to cover this, as this is the part I was making a point around. The opportunity cost of playing one card over the cost of playing a deck built around one card is very very different. Your asking about a deck (Storm) that asks someone to build the whole strategy around an effect vs a card that asks only that you have access to a colour and want creatures. These things are not comparable. Because it is going to always be easier to attack a decks engine then to attack a single effect.



When Dice_Box speaks you surely find interesting things. TNN may be a "bad taste" card but at least try to use some real argument.
Love you too.. wait who are you?


It's really funny that in your hatred against black and blue you left out white.
As if Terminus wasn't one of the best answers to TNN. Or Council's Judgement. Or Supreme Verdicts or Wraths.
By the way, Red has a way to interact with TNN on the stack, they are called Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast. Which I supposte it's the exact way blue has to interact with it (counter it on the stack).
Green at least can always race it, I suspect elves for example can always ignore it. Or if you want to point out a fair card: Hoothing Mandrills.
Or maybe you'd like colorless answers: what about Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale? What about Meakstone? Ensnaring Bridge? Blast Zone?
As if Terminus was not a card playing only in a base Blue deck. Judgement is an option yes, made directly to answer the card in question. But again we hit the age old issue. If you do not have filtering (A base white deck) having one or two answers in your 60 is not going to help you against someone who has that filtering. Not consistently. See the same for Red having 2 cards? REB is really where we are going here? Ok. Whatever. I do not see REB as an answer to "Protection from your ass" but sure. I guess if you have the right card at exactly the right moment you luck out sometimes.

Your going to point out Tabernacle... You want to play that game with me? Really? Ok boy lets have at it.
Tabernacle is not a answer to TNN because the decks that run TNN have the basic counts to subvert the land attack plan. Simply put, they only need to land the card on the table and then be smart enough to fetch a single basic and they are mostly home free. Since the only deck that runs Tab, Crucible and Geddon sucks and thuse is not a metagame threat, this point is important and worthy of note. As for Blast Zone, while the card is strong it is not the catch all people think it is. Its a slow card to use unless you are in a Post build. I love the card, but its not the be all and end all people thought it would be.


Oh yeah, I suppose paying four mana (two green) and a creature is WAAAAAY more troublesome than paying three mana (two blue), and 10 power worth is clearly way less than three.
As I said above, the cost of building your deck around an engine means your game plan can be undermined by attacking that engine. Elves is another engine deck where the costs of running Progen are real. If you draw it its very likely useless, your trying to use Progen only because the match your in is likely attacking your creatures themselves, ect. The point I was making (And you made for me here) is that you have almost no opportunity cost to playing TNN and other comparable effects all make you jump though hoops to get going.


Which is indeed very much more than you can say to storm, for example: "can you make me discard it or counter all copy of it? No, then die"
Sure, but again, whats the cost to running those cards? You have to structure your whole 75 around them. Its not a one off card you can insert with no work. I am not here to say I enjoy playing against Storm, but lets not claim that your whole 75 being built to support a card vs just slotting a card into a midrange pile is at all the same thing. It would be like comparing RUG era Goyf to Iggy Pop. No.


I am not asking for a ban of storm, nor am I denying TNN can be hard to interact with. I am just pointing out what a wonderful example of honest discussion it was
Glad you liked it. Who are you again?

[ubernostrum]

It's nice to see the crusade against a 3/1 continues. I wouldn't personally have printed True-Name, but it exists and it's not even close to banworthy in Legacy. Also, you can kill it using colorless cards, it just takes a bit of work.

Anyway. Last time I threw out some wild ideas (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation&p=1040523&viewfull=1#post1040523), WotC didn't entirely listen. They did ban Deathrite and Probe, of course, and Forsythe tweeted out that Brainstorm is a pillar of Legacy, so I went 3-for-7 on that post.

I still think Mind Twist can come off the banned list. Yeah, it's obnoxious when someone fuels a huge turn-one Twist, but lots of things in Legacy are obnoxious if they resolve turn one, and Twist at least requires you to invest a bunch of cards to produce the mana to make it worthwhile.

I still think Mana Drain should be unbanned, because the decks that would take advantage of the mana it generates would be a different direction for blue in the format.

I still think the delve critters ought to go in order to diversify creature strategies a bit more.

And I'd still like to see some other stuff unbanned. I know I'm going to get yelled at for saying this, but Oops All Spells already runs two different creatures that have the Hermit Druid effect but don't require you to untap with them to win. So actual Hermit Druid is probably a safe unban (and like Mana Drain it isn't on the reserved list, so they could reprint it in a supplemental set any time they want to). I'm also in the camp (which may just be a camp of me, all by myself) that thinks Bargain is OK to unban. Yeah, if you get it into play you probably win the game that turn, but honestly if you can get any six-mana permanent into play in Legacy you should win.

[LOLWut]

I'm also in the camp (which may just be a camp of me, all by myself) that thinks Bargain is OK to unban. Yeah, if you get it into play you probably win the game that turn, but honestly if you can get any six-mana permanent into play in Legacy you should win.

Not quite all by yourself. 13.22% of Sourcers want Bargain unbanned.

Poll: Which card(s) do you want unbanned? (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29189-Which-card(s)-do-you-want-unbanned-(No-discussion-only-voting))

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Seemingly as incomprehensible as yours, but I'll be charitable:



Note that I am not particularly good with words, and "empirical" in this sense means data-driven, in the sense of, say, raw percentage of top 8 results, or "number of decks present in."
Ok, now square this with your other post about how we shouldn't be using subjective measures.

[FTW]

I still think Mind Twist can come off the banned list. Yeah, it's obnoxious when someone fuels a huge turn-one Twist, but lots of things in Legacy are obnoxious if they resolve turn one, and Twist at least requires you to invest a bunch of cards to produce the mana to make it worthwhile.

Yeah either it would be a bunch of rituals or a MUD-shell ramp. The rituals seem worse than just casting Empty the Warrens, so the MUD version is the most viable and doesn't seem broken.



So actual Hermit Druid is probably a safe unban

OopsAllSpells has to run a bad decklist with 0 lands to make it work. That seriously limits deck construction options and consistency (fewer initial mana sources than Belcher). The actual win condition is fairly compact, but it takes about 60% of the deck to be able to resolve a Balustrade Spy effect with 0 lands.

Hermit Druid can be run in a deck with lands, found with Green Sun's Zenith, protected with cards like Force of Will or Thoughtseize... It doesn't need to be all-in. It works with normal Magic cards. You can cram it into a good Legacy shell and it reads "G, T: win the game" as long as you have dedicate a few slots to the win engine.

[Megadeus]

I personally don't think Hermit druid would break the format, but it's more likely to be broken than not so I can see why they would err on the safe side

[Dice_Box]

It would be a rather odd UG Combo Tempo deck. I don't think it would be a lot of fun to play against consistency but I think it would be cool to see now and again.

That's said, a top tier deck that can't run basics seems like pushing us back to the late DRS days. Where Lands and Red Stompy where looking to be top dogs. With Six in the format it might go that way anyway.

I think the card is broken in half, but is that really uncommon these days?

[Mr. Safety]

I would love to see a fair dark ritual deck emerge. Plague engineer is pretty fucking sick

I agree, but I don't think we need Dark Ritual to make Plague Engineer good. I think Nic-Fit could really streamline it's game plan into straight BG considering the recent new toys like the Elvish land tutor and Yawgmoth. I would play the shit out of Mind Twist Nic-Fit.

[apple713]

I personally don't think Hermit druid would break the format, but it's more likely to be broken than not so I can see why they would err on the safe side

I play hermit druid in EDH, and I can tell you that it is pretty broken. The deck is able to fight off three other decks and come out the victor within the first few turns on a consistent basis. Granted you have access to some of the most broken tutors and such, I think a legacy port of the deck would still be busted good. - tutors + consistency and protection.

Im sure the format could deal with it but it is very very resilient. I dont imagine it being healthy for the format either.

[Megadeus]

I play hermit druid in EDH, and I can tell you that it is pretty broken. The deck is able to fight off three other decks and come out the victor within the first few turns on a consistent basis. Granted you have access to some of the most broken tutors and such, I think a legacy port of the deck would still be busted good. - tutors + consistency and protection.

Im sure the format could deal with it but it is very very resilient. I dont imagine it being healthy for the format either.
Legacy also gets to play 4 ofs answers to combo decks. Lite I said, I think the format could deal with it, but I think they'd rather be safe about it

[Scott]

I would play the shit out of Mind Twist Nic-Fit.

Turn 1: https://i.imgur.com/bwLxYd6.png

Turn 2: https://i.imgur.com/xDK39Zq.png

https://i.imgur.com/KTtOixx.png

[Secretly.A.Bee]

But those bad late-game topdecks...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Scott]

But those bad late-game topdecks...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Fiine, do it with Phyrexian Tower if you want to be no fun.

[apple713]

Legacy also gets to play 4 ofs answers to combo decks. Lite I said, I think the format could deal with it, but I think they'd rather be safe about it

It's also worth mentioning that it is a 1 card combo. Additionally, Killing hermit druid is almost worse than letting him live because of hasted reanimation. RFGis just another hoop to jump through. See the list in my sig.


Postmortem Lunge
Shallow Grave

Pull From Eternity

[Mr. Safety]

Turn 1: https://i.imgur.com/bwLxYd6.png

Turn 2: https://i.imgur.com/xDK39Zq.png

https://i.imgur.com/KTtOixx.png

Culling the Weak is pretty cool, I like the synergy.

[mistercakes]

Culling the Weak is pretty cool, I like the synergy.

bolas's citadel

[FTW]

Legacy also gets to play 4 ofs answers to combo decks. Lite I said, I think the format could deal with it, but I think they'd rather be safe about it

Legacy also gets to play 4ofs protection, tutors, combo pieces, etc.


Simic Druid

//Spells: 23
4 Force of Will
4 Brainstorm
4 Ponder
4 Green Sun's Zenith
3 Thoughtseize
3 Cabal Therapy
1 Dread Return

//Creatures: 19
4 Noble Hierarch
3 Tarmogoyf
1 Scavenging Ooze
4 Hermit Druid
4 Narcomoeba
1 Leovold, Emissary of Trest
1 Laboratory Maniac
1 Azami, Lady of Scrolls
1 Angel of Glory's Rise

//Lands: 18
4 Misty Rainforest
3 Verdant Catacombs
3 Polluted Delta
3 Tropical Island
2 Bayou
2 Underground Sea
1 Dryad Arbor


That doesn't look broken, but it's probably consistent enough to win through hate often.

GB versions based around Shallow Grave might be more explosive, but less consistent.


//Creatures: 20
4 Putrid Imp
1 Sylvan Safekeeper
3 Tarmogoyf
4 Hermit Druid
4 Narcomoeba
1 Laboratory Maniac
1 Azami, Lady of Scrolls
1 Angel of Glory's Rise
1 Griselbrand

//Spells: 21
4 Green Sun's Zenith
4 Entomb
4 Thoughtseize
4 Cabal Therapy
4 Shallow Grave
1 Dread Return

//Mana: 19
4 Lotus Petal
4 Verdant Catacombs
4 Misty Rainforest
2 Marsh Flats
4 Bayou
1 Dryad Arbor

[mistercakes]

i'd probably go with some mox diamond build with wren and six. this lets you cast a turn 1 druid with potential force backup. would be 4 colors, but in a deck that doesn't play basics i don't think it's an issue.

[Mr. Safety]

Announcement is on Monday, these are my predictions:

Standard- no change
Modern- Alter of Dementia banned, Stoneforge Mystic unbanned
Legacy- Earthcraft and Mind Twist unbanned

[PirateKing]

Announcement is on Monday, these are my predictions:

Standard- no change
Modern- Alter of Dementia banned, Stoneforge Mystic unbanned
Legacy- Earthcraft and Mind Twist unbanned
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/025/090/tumblr_inline_p1brmcd9Dk1rr08jv_500.jpg
I wouldn't object in the slightest, but I anticipate no changes

[schweinefettmann]

I don’t think they’re gonna unban anything in legacy if they aren’t going to ban something. Seem to have a bit of a give and take attitude, and they wanna keep a stockpile of ‘goodies’ to feed us with.

....but hopefully, they’d unban frantic search. If I’m gonna hope, gotta hope big!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matsu]

After recently seeing a list of GB depth splashing Blue just for 4 Brainstorms and a stifle. I think we are at a point when BS must go.
Also if Echos of Eons exist. Why not unban Memory Jar? Lets go for the big fuck up, instead of durdling with Earthcraft, Mind twist or Survival.

I really want something big for this summer.

[Megadeus]

After recently seeing a list of GB depth splashing Blue just for 4 Brainstorms and a stifle. I think we are at a point when BS must go.
Also if Echos of Eons exist. Why not unban Memory Jar? Lets go for the big fuck up, instead of durdling with Earthcraft, Mind twist or Survival.

I really want something big for this summer.

The BUG depths lists with BS and stifle have been around for awhile. Popularized by the guy who created the Topdecked app. Baxter something can't remember his name

[pettdan]

Stuart Baxter Lincoln III or something like that. Unsure about first name.

[alvoi]

....but hopefully, they’d unban frantic search. If I’m gonna hope, gotta hope big!

Yeah I think that could be pretty safe, and maybe will give more space to solidarity and spiral tide

[Michael Keller]

Every time I see "no changes," I kind of get a sinking feeling a little bit. I like seeing things shaken up, especially in Legacy where it's rare you get an unbanning.

[non-inflammable]

After recently seeing a list of GB depth splashing Blue just for 4 Brainstorms and a stifle. I think we are at a point when BS must go.
Also if Echos of Eons exist. Why not unban Memory Jar? Lets go for the big fuck up, instead of durdling with Earthcraft, Mind twist or Survival.

I really want something big for this summer.

i'm right there with you brother ^^^

brainstorm's sins: sensei's divining top, probe, deathrite shaman, dig through time and treasure cruise

now imagine an unbanning of the above along with frantic search, earthcraft, mindtwist, fastbond and even mana drain

[Secretly.A.Bee]

Not this thread again...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Megadeus]

Yeah I think that could be pretty safe, and maybe will give more space to solidarity and spiral tide

Oooh with new flashback time twister I'm not so sure about this anymore

[alvoi]

Oooh with new flashback time twister I'm not so sure about this anymore

I didn't think of it. But surely the broken card is the timetwister, not the careful study

[Erdvermampfa]

I argue that the format hasn't had chance to even remotely settle from the bans of last year because the last 2 or 3 sets have all been extraordinarily impactful on the format and the matter of what is good or maybe even too good isn't even close to being answered yet. We will have to see how Karn, Dreadhorde Arcanist and Narset change the format in the long run. My suspicion that one of these cards will reach a point of power that's inacceptable at some point in the near future similiarly to DRS. Karn's absurdity has been widely recognized but my impression is that the brokenness of Arcanist isn't fully appreciated. It's capable of pulling of stuff it's most certainly not meant to do with all the 0CMC spells like Vision etc. and I expect this to become a problem at some point. Narset on the other hand has got an effect which should have never been printed on a CC3 card which is so easy to cast. I think people will eventually get severly upset about one or more of these cards and that they could therefore suffer a similiar fate as DRS once the meta has settled.

[Ronald Deuce]

brainstorm's sins: sensei's divining top, probe, deathrite shaman, dig through time and treasure cruise

Knock it off. If you think Dig and Cruise are anywhere close to the others, you're fooling yourself.

[H]

Knock it off. If you think Dig and Cruise are anywhere close to the others, you're fooling yourself.

Actually, Brainstorm is so good, it caused all of those cards to be banned in a format it has never even been legal in, as well as in Legacy!

https://i.imgur.com/RqYnPJb.gif

[Dice_Box]

I was thinking about this. Brainstorm and Legacy. Now while I know that the idea here is that shit needs somewhere to live. Transgressive cards, blah blah. I do not think Brainstorm will get banned ever in the format, its just too much a part of Legacy, good or ill. I want that in plain English. I am past fighting over this card.

That said, Pauper is now a sanctioned format. Brainstorm is legal and if the stated reason for having the card is that transgressive things need a place to live, well Legacy is not the only game in town now. Not that I expect that it will change anything, but its an interesting thought.

Edit:
Just for clarification as to wtf I am talking about.


Aaron Forsythe (@mtgaaron) Tweeted:
"It's one of the "pillars of the format" that makes it unique and players tolerate/love. It's like Brainstorm in Legacy. Every saturation metric we could ever invent would point to it being banned, but people love it. Transgressive stuff needs a place to live."

https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/985674571188588544?s=17

[Zombie]

Brainstorm's actually the weakest of the big three cantrips in Pauper, with Preordain being the default go-to. In Pauper you actually need a justification for playing Brainstorm. Shows how much the fetches being slower matters.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

Actually, Brainstorm is so good, it caused all of those cards to be banned in a format it has never even been legal in, as well as in Legacy!

https://i.imgur.com/RqYnPJb.gif

Ancestral Recall ain’t do that.

Brainstorm > Ancestral Recall, don't @ me.

[easysantiago]

i'm right there with you brother ^^^

brainstorm's sins: sensei's divining top, probe, deathrite shaman, dig through time and treasure cruise

now imagine an unbanning of the above along with frantic search, earthcraft, mindtwist, fastbond and even mana drain

I actually miss winning with Probe and losing to DRS.

[H]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/july-8-2019-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2019-07-08

No changes for Legacy, Bride from Below banned in Modern.

[Lava Snacks]

lol @ modern

[Matsu]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/july-8-2019-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2019-07-08

No changes for Legacy, Bride from Below banned in Modern.

That is sad for Legacy...

[easysantiago]

That is sad for Legacy...

Don't worry. We just have to travel back to August 26th, 219 for the next announcement.

From the article: "Next B&R Announcement: August 26, 219"

[[reptiLe]]

Don't worry. We just have to travel back to August 26th, 219 for the next announcement.

From the article: "Next B&R Announcement: August 26, 219"

that's when bride from below got married


No changes for Legacy, Bride from Below banned in Modern.

[Megadeus]

I don't think any changes are expected in the near future especially since there will be a legacy GP a month from that announcement

[H]

Don't worry. We just have to travel back to August 26th, 219 for the next announcement.

From the article: "Next B&R Announcement: August 26, 219"

Elagabalus shall deliver Legacy into it's Golden Age!

[easysantiago]

Elagabalus shall deliver Legacy into it's Golden Age!

Quality Rome-posting.

[Mr. Safety]

Does this truly neuter the Bridgevine deck in modern? Is the Bridgevine deck good enough to port to Legacy?

[Megadeus]

Does this truly neuter the Bridgevine deck in modern? Is the Bridgevine deck good enough to port to Legacy?

There have been a few 5-0 in legacy online for the deck.

[Mr. Safety]

There have been a few 5-0 in legacy online for the deck.

Really?!? Very cool. It seems like an explosive deck for sure, and a little less susceptible to graveyard hate as traditional dredge. Seeing it in action, there are self-sustaining combos with Bridge/Hogaak/Altar, as early as turn 2 but reliably t3. Backup plan of having 12+ power on the battlefield t2-3 seems ok. I love that Altar can disrupt Terminus, probably the one card that would truly foil this deck in Legacy.

Looking at Legacy, was anyone actually expecting or hoping for a ban? I thought we might get Earthcraft and/or Mind Twist unbanned at last, but the powers-that-be seem to be more comfortable with just letting War of the Spark/Modern Horizons cause enough shake-up.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Does this truly neuter the Bridgevine deck in modern? Is the Bridgevine deck good enough to port to Legacy?

well, yoou did just say bridge twice, so....

[Mr. Safety]

well, yoou did just say bridge twice, so....

Nomenclature aside, I think the deck is still incredibly powerful without Bridge. So it becomes Altar-Vine, Hogaak-Vine, or just Hogaak, whatever, the point I'm attempting to make is this: will the deck still be oppressive by making 12+ power on t2 reliably?

[rufus]

Nomenclature aside, I think the deck is still incredibly powerful without Bridge. So it becomes Altar-Vine, Hogaak-Vine, or just Hogaak, whatever, the point I'm attempting to make is this: will the deck still be oppressive by making 12+ power on t2 reliably?

It's really just a matter of working out the best way to fill the graveyard. Bridge is certainly a derpy card, but you can cast Hogaak with Prized Amalgam and Bloodghast too.

[Ronald Deuce]

Elagabalus shall deliver Legacy into it's Golden Age!

I sorta wish this website had a "like" function.

[Mr. Safety]

It's really just a matter of working out the best way to fill the graveyard. Bridge is certainly a derpy card, but you can cast Hogaak with Prized Amalgam and Bloodghast too.

Bingo, I don't think we've seen the last of this deck.

[H]

I sorta wish this website had a "like" function.

I don't know, the less like Facebook this forum is, the better, probably... :laugh:

[Smuggo]

With bridge from below banned in modern maybe they could unban Golgari Grave-Troll for the second time.

[mistercakes]

not sure if that's serious or not. GGT was way too busted for dredge. dredge also hasn't played bridge in a while in modern. deck is really stable without it. i really like the deck.

[Smuggo]

not sure if that's serious or not. GGT was way too busted for dredge. dredge also hasn't played bridge in a while in modern. deck is really stable without it. i really like the deck.

I can't actually remember whether modern dredge ran bridge or not and I used to play it. I just want to sell the GGTs I have in my folder really. Also unbanning the card that was so good they banned it twice would mildly amuse me.

[Michael Keller]

So when is Legacy’s announcement?

[Matsu]

So when is Legacy’s announcement?

I think is the 26th of august

[spirit of the wretch]

I think is the 26th of august

2021

[Dice_Box]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/july-8-2019-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2019-07-08

No changes for Legacy, Bride from Below banned in Modern.

Persephone was banned?

[H]

Persephone was banned?

Always has been, always will be, :wink:

(Yeah, I suck.)

[Dice_Box]

Always has been, always will be, :wink:

(Yeah, I suck.)

Na man, my spelling is miles worse, I just thought it too funny to leave on the floor.

[Mr. Safety]

Announcement coming up on 8/26, any predictions? The modern community is clamoring for a Hogaak ban, which I think is fairly inevitable, which could result in a Stoneforge unban (prisoner exchange program.) That's my prediction for modern.

I still want Mind Twist for legacy, but I think there will be no changes. Modern Horizons has really shaken up the format with W&6, Force of Negation, Urza, Yawgmoth, and lots of other cards. War of the Spark gave us Dreadhorde Arcanist and Narset, Parter of Veils. I predict no changes.

[Fox]

Would guess no changes to legacy. There’s no one ban to dissuade the 4-5c stuff. Astrolabe would be the best ban, but that wouldn’t do a thing to stop 4c Wrenn. Hit Wrenn and you just Vista into Astrolabe and do the next best thing.

[H]

I still want Mind Twist for legacy, but I think there will be no changes. Modern Horizons has really shaken up the format with W&6, Force of Negation, Urza, Yawgmoth, and lots of other cards. War of the Spark gave us Dreadhorde Arcanist and Narset, Parter of Veils. I predict no changes.

Indeed, given that the last few Challenges (and MCQ) have had somewhat "different seeming" top 8 compositions:

8/11: ANT x2, 4c Pile, 4c Aggro Loam, Depths, RUG Delver, Maverick Depths and Miracles
8/10 MCQ: Dragon Stompy x3, Humans, Depths, Reanimator, 4c Astrolabe Pile, UW StoneBlade
8/4: 4c Delver, RUG Delver, UR Delver, Mono-Red Painter, Bant "Maverick", Hogaak Depths, Death and Taxes, Grixis
7/28: UW StoneBlade, Sneak and Show, ANT, 4c Delver x2, Hogaak Depths, Jund Aggro Loam-less Loam, Jund

I could go on, but really, the format is pretty "open" despite the clear trends going on, on Depths being good, 4c Delver being popular, and people seemingly unclear on what to do to attack that, besides jamming Dragon Stompy. "No changes" seems like even more of a clear safe bet right now.

[LOLWut]

Has anyone noticed how non-blue Legacy is in very recent results? MTGTop8's most played cards stat includes tournaments of all sizes, and for the last two weeks, Brainstorm is no longer the most-played card, well below Wasteland (at 56%) and at only 40%. I've never seen it in 2nd place before, or with a number that low.

We've had five bigger tournaments of at least seven rounds in the last two weeks. Decks in blue have Brainstorm.

Top 8 for--
8/11 MTGO Challenge: Depths, 4C Control, Depths, Miracles, Aggro Loam, ANT, 4C Delver, Hogaak Depths
8/10 MTGO MCQ with 210 players: Stoneblade, Dragon Stompy, Dragon Stompy, B/R Reanimator, Dragon Stompy, Humans, 4C Control, Depths
8/4 MKM Frankfurt 2019 with 282 players: 4C Delver, U/R Delver, Dragon Stompy, 12 Post, Dragon Stompy, Eldrazi & Taxes, Grixis Control, Aggro Loam
8/4 MTGO Challenge with 117 players: 4C Delver, 4C Delver, Ruby Storm, Imperial Painter, Bant, Depths, Death & Taxes, Grixis Control
8/4 Bagual Anthologies @ Porto Alegre with 84 players: Stoneblade, Slivers, RUG Delver, Eldrazi, Dredge, Elves, U/R Delver, Miracles

That's 42.5% of the top 8s of big tournaments in the last two weeks that have Brainstorm. It must have been, what, 70-75% a few years ago? Probably just a two week blip being that low, or a function of the meta being in flux, but it's definitely dropped, and I've never seen two week spans like this, with it in 2nd place and below 45%.

[H]

That's 42.5% of the top 8s of big tournaments in the last two weeks that have Brainstorm. It must have been, what, 70-75% a few years ago? Probably just a two week blip being that low, or a function of the meta being in flux, but it's definitely dropped, and I've never seen two week spans like this, with it in 2nd place and below 45%.

Well, I think several of us "predicted" something like this could happen, specifically because of the London Mulligan. Cantrips do equal higher consistency over time, but with all decks being more consistent out of the Mull, that "advantage" toward Blue cantrips is likely mitigated to some extent. In iteration over X rounds, this likely means that Blue decks are now less "favored" over "non-Blue" decks than they were pre-London, although exactly how much less is likely unable to be known. However, the results seem to imply this could likely be the case.

In other words, it seem plausible that the "left-tail" of variance for non-Blue decks is now higher (i.e. less variant), meaning less games that Blue decks win just off sheer "my opponent mulls to oblivion/non-cantrip repairable hand" games. This means that some "powerful, high variance" strategies, which are often non-Blue, are more likely now to win over time, than they would obviously be without the London Mulligan.

[Rood]

Announcement coming up on 8/26, any predictions? The modern community is clamoring for a Hogaak ban, which I think is fairly inevitable, which could result in a Stoneforge unban (prisoner exchange program.) That's my prediction for modern.

I still want Mind Twist for legacy, but I think there will be no changes. Modern Horizons has really shaken up the format with W&6, Force of Negation, Urza, Yawgmoth, and lots of other cards. War of the Spark gave us Dreadhorde Arcanist and Narset, Parter of Veils. I predict no changes.

The only card i could realistically see them hit is GRiselbrand. Cards been on the chopping block for some time

[Jax-]

The only card i could realistically see them hit is GRiselbrand. Cards been on the chopping block for some time

Banning Griselbrand makes no sense for a lot of reasons.

[Jax-]

Well, I think several of us "predicted" something like this could happen, specifically because of the London Mulligan. Cantrips do equal higher consistency over time, but with all decks being more consistent out of the Mull, that "advantage" toward Blue cantrips is likely mitigated to some extent. In iteration over X rounds, this likely means that Blue decks are now less "favored" over "non-Blue" decks than they were pre-London, although exactly how much less is likely unable to be known. However, the results seem to imply this could likely be the case.

In other words, it seem plausible that the "left-tail" of variance for non-Blue decks is now higher (i.e. less variant), meaning less games that Blue decks win just off sheer "my opponent mulls to oblivion/non-cantrip repairable hand" games. This means that some "powerful, high variance" strategies, which are often non-Blue, are more likely now to win over time, than they would obviously be without the London Mulligan.

It's not the London Mulligan. They printed some cards that made some strategies obsolete reducing the range of the good fair blue decks and increasing the number of some non blue strategies.

Im talking about Wrenn and Six and Plague Engineer.
Miracles and UW Blade decline lead to an increase of Depths based decks that have a good matchup vs those new black based control decks.
Depths increased number leads to the rise of Moon Stompy decks (another non blue deck that isnt great in a UW based meta).

[H]

It's not the London Mulligan. They printed some cards that made some strategies obsolete reducing the range of the good fair blue decks and increasing the number of some non blue strategies.

Im talking about Wrenn and Six and Plague Engineer.
Miracles and UW Blade decline lead to an increase of Depths based decks that have a good matchup vs those new black based control decks.
Depths increased number leads to the rise of Moon Stompy decks (another non blue deck that isnt great in a UW based meta).

That is an interesting point, but both that and my point about the London Mulligan, could in fact be true as neither is mutually exclusive. Indeed, both likely "feed into" each other, since both Depths and Moon decks are "answers" to the rise in Black decks and corresponding decline in UW decks (and, likely I think a decline in D&T decks, which is usually somewhat "good" vs. Depths and Moon) and are also decks that likely benefit from the Mulligan rule "more so" (even if only slightly so) than most UXX decks.

Ergo, in the past, it might have been case that new cards would just have pushed around the proportions of individual decks within the Blue proportion of the metagame, due to non-Blue's inherent variance. Now with the London Mulligan though, non-Blue suffers comparatively less variance, and so is a more "viable" answer to the metagame forces (which you point out) at hand.

[Dice_Box]

I think with the new rule, an argument can be made that some stripe of Hex Depths might be the best deck in the format right now.

[Fox]

I think with the new rule, an argument can be made that some stripe of Hex Depths might be the best deck in the format right now.

Not to worry, I’m sure Wrenn/Vista/Astrolabe will find some way of working Karakas into their maindecks for Hogaak and Lage.

[Megadeus]

Banning Griselbrand makes no sense for a lot of reasons.

Would love to hear those reasons. Because I can't think of a single one

[NeckBird]

Would love to hear those reasons. Because I can't think of a single one

The only reason why is current metagame percentage and that could change with any new printing. Anybody that says Griselbrand enables Reanimator and Sneak & Show ignore the fact that those decks existed before Griselbrand was printed and other cards have been printed since that can compete with Griselbrand - those cards just don’t necessarily produce the dullest, least skill intensive games of Magic you can possibly play.

[porcupinetreeman]

IMO Ban these for healthier meta

Griselbrand
Dark Depths
Brainstorm

[Mr. Safety]

That is an interesting point, but both that and my point about the London Mulligan, could in fact be true as neither is mutually exclusive. Indeed, both likely "feed into" each other, since both Depths and Moon decks are "answers" to the rise in Black decks and corresponding decline in UW decks (and, likely I think a decline in D&T decks, which is usually somewhat "good" vs. Depths and Moon) and are also decks that likely benefit from the Mulligan rule "more so" (even if only slightly so) than most UXX decks.

Ergo, in the past, it might have been case that new cards would just have pushed around the proportions of individual decks within the Blue proportion of the metagame, due to non-Blue's inherent variance. Now with the London Mulligan though, non-Blue suffers comparatively less variance, and so is a more "viable" answer to the metagame forces (which you point out) at hand.

Great post, I just want to add one thing to it: there is a perceived gain in consistency for non-blue decks which makes people want to play non-blue decks again. Whether the consistency gain is relevant enough to affect the format mix (still too early to tell, in my opinion) doesn't really matter if everyone thinks the non-blue decks are more viable. All this aside, some people just don't like playing blue. Some are getting a small uptick in percentage points for their non-blue decks and it's giving them a major chubby.

[Fox]

Is Griselbrand even performing well? The printing of FoN should decrease win% coming out of BR Reanimator. SnT is still just doing SnT it’s usual tier 1 to 1.5 bouncing, but Vista would have been a minor free boost to win % (Wrenn/Plague Engineer pushing out DnT would definitely making longer tournament runs for SnT easier though).

What exactly are people ticked off with about Grisel - is it the BR Griselcannon, or is it SnT? If it’s BR Reanimator, you could just ban Chancellor (parasitizes first-player advantage) and let blue deck FoW it out of existence - at which point they have to revert to real Reanimator (UBx), which doesn’t seem like a problem deck. If it’s SnT’s Grisel, you’d probably want to ban Wrenn to get DnT back to holding SnT down. Sure SnT can run Omniscience to play around DnT, but removing Emrakul would be a better way to keep them [specifically] honest.

There’s quite a few moving pieces to get Grisel into play, and while pay 7:draw 7 is powerful, the route there is a bit janky. So what’s the issue: the turn 0-1 kills of BR or getting aped by anything SnT can ramp out?

[Dice_Box]

Meh. Just ban TNN and then do nothing for 24 months.

[KobeBryan]

ban W&6...this card is overpowered and degenerate.

[LOLWut]

IMO Ban these for healthier meta

Griselbrand
Dark Depths
Brainstorm


Meh. Just ban TNN and then do nothing for 24 months.


ban W&6...this card is overpowered and degenerate.

Giving voice to the silent majority: Nah.

[Megadeus]

I feel like the lack of results for Griselbrand are more people are bored playing it more than anything

[Jax-]

You can't ban Griselbrand because:

You kill one archetype and make another one way worse

No, Reanimator won't survive a Griselbrand ban. It would be playable like others tier 3 / fringe decks, but thats it. Reanimator is not a Toolbox Creature deck, it's an all in resource based combo that needs to win the game once its spells resolves, the way it does it is by drawing 14 cards with Griselbrand. Even silver bullets like Elesh Norn or Iona aren't good enough to win the game, even in the matchups where they are good.
Banning Griselbrand is not like banning DRS or Probe. Griselbrand is a combo piece in a A+B combo deck. You will kill the combo and you will make the whole archetype a lot worse.

There are zero datas supporting a Griselbrand ban

Reanimator won exactly zero decent sized tournaments, neither online where its over rapresented or in paper.
It barely top8.
Saying players are bored of playing it is obviously wrong, I found a lot of popular decks boring. A lot of people love to win, if it was the best deck it would be easily over played and it would place tons of results. Thats not the case.
You are trying to make one card banned , a card that no one play, in a deck that barely see plays and hardly make any results. Why even trying outside your personal biased opinion? Flat Earth stuff to me.

You make Fair Blue strategies even better

Reanimator has a really good game 1 against those decks. They must play something in their sideboard to fix the matchup. By killing Reanimator you are freeing up the sideboard slots of those decks, making them better.

You make other combo decks worse

There are currently 7 combo decks with over a 2% meta share on mtgtop8.

Depths, Reanimator, Show and Tell, Dredge, Elves , Storm and Infect.

While Reanimator is usually considered a combo deck killer, so it seems counter-intuitive saying that other combo decks will get worse, you need to keep in mind that if you ban Griselbrand, fair strategies will now have more slots to play their Plague Engineer, or even narrow silver bullets like Alpine Moon or Canonist, making the life of those decks even worse (that arent well positioned in the current meta already).
The few % points you get from not facing Reanimator anymore wouldnt make up for it.

The only deck that really gets better here is Dredge, losing a bad matchup, less graveyard hate around, fringe deck that is barely played, another non interactive deck that is unfun to play against, more resilient to Surgical Extraction and that can still turn 1 kill you pretty often, especially now with the London Mulligan.

You make aggro strategies a lot better but they are housed by cards like Plague Engineer, Wrenn and Six and Terminus

Yeah thats the whole point of the banning. I doubt that you want to ban Griselbrand to make fair blue strategies better, you are banning it to make non blue fair strategies better and have an easier life, sadly the number 1 enemy of those decks isnt Griselbrand, but cards largely played in FAIR BLUE decks, like Plague Engineer that completely wrecks tribals, or Terminus, or Wrenn and Six that makes Death and Taxes and decks with X/1 creatures a lot worse. Those are the oppressive cards.

Graveyard strategies are the most easily hateble

Graveyard hate is by far the most efficient kind of hate. We have zero cmc colorless cards that can be played in any deck. Almost all the cards , from surgical Extraction to Leyline of the void can be played regardless of your deck composition and they are turn 0 interactions.

You are messing with the Aggro/Combo/Control equilibrium

By banning combo pieces/engines you are messing with some stuff that would probably lead to a worse and narrow metagame.
New efficient combo engines rarely gets printed, while fair strategies gets new toys every expansion. If you make combo worse a lot of good players will just switch to some fair blue deck until something new will get printed, probably never.

[Dice_Box]

Giving voice to the silent majority: Nah.
It they are all silent, how do you know?

[Matsu]

You can't ban Griselbrand because:

I have to disagree:cool:


You kill one archetype and make another one way worse

No, Reanimator won't survive a Griselbrand ban. It would be playable like others tier 3 / fringe decks, but thats it. Reanimator is not a Toolbox Creature deck, it's an all in resource based combo that needs to win the game once its spells resolves, the way it does it is by drawing 14 cards with Griselbrand. Even silver bullets like Elesh Norn or Iona aren't good enough to win the game, even in the matchups where they are good.
Banning Griselbrand is not like banning DRS or Probe. Griselbrand is a combo piece in a A+B combo deck. You will kill the combo and you will make the whole archetype a lot worse.

It is not true, Reanimator was playable long time before Grizzlybrand was printed. It might reduce the all in BR version and might reinforce the UB version played ages ago. You just reanimate a big boy and have Counterspell backup for removals. The biggest hit and also why Grizzly brand is broken is Ape&Show. Reanimator has to bin his crits, when S&S just put it into play then draw 14 cards, and put Emi into play. I you do not have countermagic it is not so easy to combat a S&S.


There are zero datas supporting a Griselbrand ban

Reanimator won exactly zero decent sized tournaments, neither online where its over rapresented or in paper.
It barely top8.
Saying players are bored of playing it is obviously wrong, I found a lot of popular decks boring. A lot of people love to win, if it was the best deck it would be easily over played and it would place tons of results. Thats not the case.
You are trying to make one card banned , a card that no one play, in a deck that barely see plays and hardly make any results. Why even trying outside your personal biased opinion? Flat Earth stuff to me.

Again I will have to disagree I stick a picture, this is just the last month. You can check it yourself by having a look at the link, remember that WotC do not realease all the data. To not solve the format, or something like that:eyebrow:
https://i.imgur.com/lgdUhUk.png

https://www.mtgstocks.com/prints/509



You make Fair Blue strategies even better

Reanimator has a really good game 1 against those decks. They must play something in their sideboard to fix the matchup. By killing Reanimator you are freeing up the sideboard slots of those decks, making them better.

That is not true, by fair blue decks I understand the Xerox archetype. Which always have 4 Fow, and depends on Flavour Daze or the new Fow and according to mtggolfish they mostly play 3 to 4 copies of surgical extraction. Which is also useful against other decks not only strict Graveyard decks, I have seen people side in SE against Lands, 4cLoam, Storm, Dredge and Miracles.


You make other combo decks worse

There are currently 7 combo decks with over a 2% meta share on mtgtop8.

Depths, Reanimator, Show and Tell, Dredge, Elves , Storm and Infect.

While Reanimator is usually considered a combo deck killer, so it seems counter-intuitive saying that other combo decks will get worse, you need to keep in mind that if you ban Griselbrand, fair strategies will now have more slots to play their Plague Engineer, or even narrow silver bullets like Alpine Moon or Canonist, making the life of those decks even worse (that arent well positioned in the current meta already).
The few % points you get from not facing Reanimator anymore wouldnt make up for it.

The only deck that really gets better here is Dredge, losing a bad matchup, less graveyard hate around, fringe deck that is barely played, another non interactive deck that is unfun to play against, more resilient to Surgical Extraction and that can still turn 1 kill you pretty often, especially now with the London Mulligan.

Reanimator will not die, dont worry. I do not think people will start to put more cards in their decks to combat combo if the biggest thread will be banned. They will still use SE to fight against depths, reanimator, dredge, storm, for the rest there is bolt, StP and wasteland, all those cards are very present in the format and mosty in the main deck not side.


You make aggro strategies a lot better but they are housed by cards like Plague Engineer, Wrenn and Six and Terminus

Yeah thats the whole point of the banning. I doubt that you want to ban Griselbrand to make fair blue strategies better, you are banning it to make non blue fair strategies a better and easier life, sadly the number 1 enemy of those decks isnt Griselbrand, but cards largely played in FAIR BLUE decks, like Plague Engineer that completely wrecks tribals, or Terminus, or Wrenn and Six that makes Death and Taxes and decks with X/1 creatures a lot worse. Those are the oppressive cards.


Again I will have to disagree, how D&T, Maverick, Zoo, Robots, Eldrazi on turn 1 or 2 can combat Sire of sanity, Iona, Grave titan with zombies, consecrated Sphinx, Elesh, etc… when they mostly play 4xStP. Hmm it they have it, good for you. You just gain 6/7 life to reanimate another dude:smile:


Graveyard strategies are the most easily hateble

Graveyard hate is by far the most efficient kind of hate. We have zero cmc colorless cards that can be played in any deck. Almost all the cards , from surgical Extraction to Leyline of the void can be played regardless of your deck composition and they are turn 0 interactions.


Agreed, but you do not use those cards against S&S


You are messing with the Aggro/Combo/Control equilibrium

By banning combo pieces/engines you are messing with some stuff that would probably lead to a worse and narrow metagame.
New efficient combo engines rarely gets printed, while fair strategies gets new toys every expansion. If you make combo worse a lot of good players will just switch to some fair blue deck until something new will get printed, probably never.

We have plenty of efficient combo engines in Legacy that are not as broken as Grizzlybrand. Yawgmoth Bargain is an example. Banning broken cards that you can easily cheat with Reanimation effects, sneak attach, S&T, Omni… might lead to unbanning of cards like Earthcraft, Survival or even Oath.
Slowing the format by removing a couple of cards does not mean the rock, paper, scissor equilibrium will be disrupted (it already is disrupted with Delver everywhere, best aggro crit ever printed). This might open the way to decks that need to establish an engine to win, like Storm decks, elves, infect, etc… or other weird decks. Thanks to that the format will become more interesting and will attract more people. But unfortunately this is not what WotC want. They want all the formats apart Standard, maybe Modern to be suspended between death and life. So they can make money selling new products.

And I will agree with Porcupine Tree, yes, Grizzlybrand and BS should go. I am not sure about Depths, it can be explosive, but I do not know if this is so broken to be banned.

[Deirex85]

We have plenty of efficient combo engines in Legacy that are not as broken as Grizzlybrand. Yawgmoth Bargain is an example.

Bargain is banned and also not the best comparison to Griselbrand despite doing similar things.

[Jax-]

I have to disagree:cool:


It is not true, Reanimator was playable long time before Grizzlybrand was printed. It might reduce the all in BR version and might reinforce the UB version played ages ago. You just reanimate a big boy and have Counterspell backup for removals. The biggest hit and also why Grizzly brand is broken is Ape&Show. Reanimator has to bin his crits, when S&S just put it into play then draw 14 cards, and put Emi into pay. I you do not have countermagic it is not so easy to combat a S&S.


No. Playable is completely different from tier 1/2. Nic Fit is playable. Reanimator without Griselbrand, like I said, would be a tier 3 deck at best. You cant play 2012 Reanimator in the current meta and pretend to put up results, dont be' silly.



Again I will have to disagree I stick a picture, this is just the last month. You can check it yourself by having a look at the link, remember that WotC do not realease all the data. To not solve the format, or something like that:eyebrow:
https://i.imgur.com/lgdUhUk.png

https://www.mtgstocks.com/prints/509



Sorry but this completely make your whole post a pile of crap (no offence). The first 5 results in your link are MTGO 5-0s. Any deck will regulary get at least 1 of those every single week. Link me any 50+ players tournament where Reanimator won. Guess what? You can't. You are not even aware of how those kind of sites are working and from where they are taking their stats.



That is not true, by fair blue decks I understand the Xerox archetype. Which always have 4 Fow, and depends on Flavour Daze or the new Fow and according to mtggolfish they mostly play 3 to 4 copies of surgical extraction. Which is also useful against other decks not only strict Graveyard decks, I have seen people side in SE against Lands, 4cLoam, Storm, Dredge and Miracles.

Thats very true. Reanimator easily beat countermagic by just going into cleanup phase and discard Griselbrand, they now have 8 discards + 12 animate effects to fight your countermagic. Reanimator is heavily favored vs any fair blue deck game 1.
No, no one play 4 surgical extractions in their fair blue deck, I dont know where are you taking those numbers, will to share a link? They also usually play some numbers of Cage and Tormods that are obviously not that much needed if the best graveyard based combo deck is bad.


.


Reanimator will not die, dont worry. I do not think people will start to put more cards in their decks to combat combo if the biggest thread will be banned. They will still use SE to fight against depths, reanimator, dredge, storm, for the rest there is bolt, StP and wasteland, all those cards are very present in the format and mosty in the main deck not side.


Yes it will die. Its not already good enough to put up results and will completely die if Griselbrand is banned. Im ready to bet my money on this statement. Are you? Reanimator is not the biggest threat. Depths is by far the most played and best placed combo right now. Are you even playing regulary or just speculating/living in the past?



Again I will have to disagree, how D&T, Maverick, Zoo, Robots, Eldrazi on turn 1 or 2 can combat Sire of sanity, Iona, Grave titan with zombies, consecrated Sphinx, Elesh, etc… when they mostly play 4xStP. Hmm it they have it, good for you. You just gain 6/7 life to reanimate another dude:smile:

Swords to Plowshares, Karakas and Leyline of the Void. I think you are trolling at this point and never ever played the matchup before. Reanimate another dude? Yeah definetely trolling.



We have plenty of efficient combo engines in Legacy that are not as broken as Grizzlybrand. Yawgmoth Bargain is an example. Banning broken cards that you can easily cheat with Reanimation effects, sneak attach, S&T, Omni… might lead to unbanning of cards like Earthcraft, Survival or even Oath.
Slowing the format by removing a couple of cards does not mean the rock, paper, scissor equilibrium will be disrupted (it already is disrupted with Delver everywhere, best aggro crit ever printed). This might open the way to decks that need to establish an engine to win, like Storm decks, elves, infect, etc… or other weird decks. Thanks to that the format will become more interesting and will attract more people. But unfortunately this is not what WotC want. They want all the formats apart Standard, maybe Modern to be suspended between death and life. So they can make money selling new products.

And I will agree with Porcupine Tree, yes, Grizzlybrand and BS should go. I am not sure about Depths, it can be explosive, but I do not know if this is so broken to be banned.

Yeah definetely trolling. Bargain is banned, Storm is borderline good, depends on the week, Elves and Infect are definetely worse with Wrenn and Six and Plague Engineer around.

You are saying that the format is not attractive because a deck, that is barely played, push people away from it.

Do you even play Legacy?

[Matsu]

Bargain is banned and also not the best comparison to Griselbrand despite doing similar things.

Exactly, i did it on purpose.
https://i.imgur.com/QjPO1oO.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Bj9qeSn.jpg

When you compare the two cards, Bargain has a stronger effect and has a downside of skip your draw. Grizzly is Bargain without the skip draw, legs, flying and lifelink. I my opinion Bargains is weaker compared to Grizzlybrand so why it is banned ?

[Deirex85]

Apologies, the way your wrote your sentence made it appear as if Bargain was legal.



Bargain also costs less, is generally harder to remove once it hits the battlefield and allows you to draw cards one at a time.

They would be used in completely different decks and although they both let you draw cards for life the way the cards are put in to play and used is completely different.

Therefore they are not a good comparison.

[H]

When you compare the two cards, Bargain has a stronger effect and has a downside of skip your draw. Grizzly is Bargain without the skip draw, legs, flying and lifelink. I my opinion Bargains is weaker compared to Grizzlybrand so why it is banned ?

Oh boy, we are really going to do all this over again?

Yawgmoth's Bargain is Banned for "the same reason" as Earthcraft is. That is, there is no "contemporary" reason for it. There likely never will be, because it is extremely unlikely Bargain will ever be Unbanned. It's Banned because it always was, it's not going to get Unbanned, because no one who makes that decision seems to see any point in doing so.

If you imagine that the B&R List will ever be something predicated on rationally articulated argumentation, well, you will be waiting forever. And on page 2,000+ of this thread, the same tired arguments will still be going on, and on, and on.

So, why is Griselbrand not Banned? Because it never was. It has always been legal since it's printing, it's never crossed whatever "threshold" the people who make those decisions see it as and so it will continue to be so, until the time it is not. What time will that be? Probably never, it's just a dumb thing that exists and likely always will. It's part of what Legacy is, a format predicated on certain dumbly powerful cards. Some of those cards are more or less dumb than others. But just being dumb isn't the criteria for Banning, thank God. Or else we'd all just being playing Grizzly_Bears.dec.

[LOLWut]

It they are all silent, how do you know?

Let me make a poll and let's find out.

[H]

Let me make a poll and let's find out.

If they vote, they would no longer be silent, so you can't possibly prove your statement to be factual in the manner you seek.

[LOLWut]

If they vote, they would no longer be silent, so you can't possibly prove your statement to be factual in the manner you seek.

Silent majority is defined as


any group of people who are not outspoken and who are considered to constitute a majority
with vocalizations--on a message board for instance--constituting outspokenness, and voting (often anonymous and/or without comment) is actually the precise manner in which the presence of a silent majority has historically been proven.

[H]

Silent majority is defined as with vocalizations--on a message board for instance--constituting outspokenness, and voting (often anonymous and/or without comment) is actually the precise manner in which the presence of a silent majority has historically been proven.

Stacking assumptions into a concept does not make the end result less of an assumption, it only makes it a collection of assumptions.

You've already assumed that, one, the majority is silent.

Two, that this silent majority would vote.

Three, that the nature of the vote actually reaches this so called "silent majority."

Four, that any respondent of the vote is representative of the whole and not of a subcategory of the whole, which could be called "those who would vote."

Five, that voting is in fact not a violation of the notion of silence.

Six, that notions of silence can only apply to vocalization (and by this, seemly extended to writing as well).

There are likely more, but that is just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I don't see an appeal to historicism here as being particularly illustrative of how none of the above as assumptions. Nor why we should simply take these assumptions as facts of the matter.

What your poll would more like produce is "what registered users on MTGTheSource.com, who are inclined to vote, would vote for." It would only be a matter of interpretation if that is representative of the whole of Legacy players, not as a matter of facts.

[Mr. Safety]

Stacking assumptions into a concept does not make the end result less of an assumption, it only makes it a collection of assumptions.

You've already assumed that, one, the majority is silent.

Two, that this silent majority would vote.

Three, that the nature of the vote actually reaches this so called "silent majority."

Four, that any respondent of the vote is representative of the whole and not of a subcategory of the whole, which could be called "those who would vote."

Five, that voting is in fact not a violation of the notion of silence.

Six, that notions of silence can only apply to vocalization (and by this, seemly extended to writing as well).

There are likely more, but that is just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I don't see an appeal to historicism here as being particularly illustrative of how none of the above as assumptions. Nor why we should simply take these assumptions as facts of the matter.

What your poll would more like produce is "what registered users on MTGTheSource.com, who are inclined to vote, would vote for." It would only be a matter of interpretation if that is representative of the whole of Legacy players, not as a matter of facts.

I feel like you need someone to cheer you on, what with your great posts recently.

Therefore, in response to LOLwut, I have found this for you:
http://cdn.webfail.com/upl/img/031ac67d777/post2.jpg

[H]

I feel like you need someone to cheer you on, what with your great posts recently.

:laugh:

I am just so tired of the circular nonsense that repeats in the thread every, what, 10-15 pages or so? It's as if we are all goldfish and after one lap of the bowl, we forget how we got there and why. I might be no smarter than a goldfish, but I do have a better memory than that.

Let's try to move the conversation in a new direction, not the same tired ones over and over again. At least, that is what I'd like to think I am trying to do.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

You get that "silent majority" isn't literally comprised of a multitude of mutes right?

[H]

You get that "silent majority" isn't literally comprised of a multitude of mutes right?

When did I say or imply that it would​, in fact, be a "multitude of mutes?"

[Fox]

I think we can all agree that Bargain's being able to infinitely fog the draw step after getting Jace-ult'd is the key difference. :cool:

@Jax- you said something about BR Reanimator being anti-combo, but that's not correct. UBx is the anti-combo version, while BR is just there to cheese wins off of Chancellor exploiting first-player advantage into discard into Griselcannon. BR is built to cheese every deck in the same manner, but it's really there to terrorize fair dude decks. While BR may have some decent matchups vs certain types of combo, it generally encourages other combo players to play a combo deck like SnT b/c combo-control is a generally good answer to turbo-linear cheese (Chalice, BR, TurboDepths, etc...).

While SnT doesn't have the best of matchups vs BR, it's still passable - what's really important to SnT is that BR is terrorizing all the fair decks such that they [SnT] doesn't have to play against stupid hatebears. This beneficial relationship makes Grand Prix/Eternal Weekend byes that much better for SnT. A quick recap: the more BR there is, the better positioned SnT is for deep tournament runs, particularly with byes.

Now that we've identified BR as a pro-combo deck, you just need to look at Wrenn/Plague Engineer pushing out DnT [most important] and other dude/hatebear deck [less important]. Not only do Wrenn decks have a less than stellar matchup vs SnT, as they've had to cut down on Hymn/SCM spam [highly damaging to SnT's need for 2 cards in hand to go off] to make room for Wrenn and/or Astrolabe...and they've further displaced Hymn with inclusion of Goyf and Decay.

While all this is going on, Spell Snare [maindeck] and BEB [sideboard] have been on the rise in response to Wrenn - this is heavily favors the 3cmc SnT. This is a [BR] Grisel encouraging more [SnT] Grisel pattern. Without any bans [Wrenn/Engi or Chancellor] to the decks propping up SnT's current favorable environment, we should expect SnT to swing back up from tier 1.5 to DTB for the foreseeable future.

UBx Reanimator is the anti-combo version, which would always elect to play against combo over control or aggro, if given the choice. This version is pretty poor at hating out fair decks, and very good at punishing SnT - as far as fair SnT-disliking decks are concerned, UBx Grisel is ultimately a 'good actor.' We can look back to the DTT era [focusing on combo] and see OmniTell pushing out fair decks, and then see the subsequent rise in UBx as a response. The more UBx you would have seen in your LGS back then, the more likely you would have been to finish with better records as a fair dude deck.

Here again BR helps SnT, as Chancellor cheese + discard followup acts as even more copies of Entomb when BR faces UBx. It's not hard to see how playing Leyline of Daze (w/o picking up land) allows BR to keep SnT safe from UBx.

[Rood]

I didn’t mean to open a can of worms with Griselbrand but he was clearly a mistake of a card. I think Entombs another card that should probably be re-banned. They wont ban cantrips in this format because it killed Vintage completely which used to be a pretty played format. People just like Brainstorm

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

When did I say or imply that it would​, in fact, be a "multitude of mutes?"

Your whole post? Over and over against every time you thought you were scoring some points by saying "Nu-uh, if you vote you're silent, check and mate!"

[H]

Your whole post? Over and over against every time you thought you were scoring some points by saying "Nu-uh, if you vote you're silent, check and mate!"

My point was exactly the opposite. The assumption that silence could only apply to voicing (that is, here, writing) and not to a general notion of "expressing" an opinion, of which a vote would be an example, is just that, an assumption.

So, no, I don't think people not expressing an opinion are literally mute. But I also don't just assume people who are apt to be "silent" would vote. In fact, I don't assume they have a definite opinion, because there is no evidence if they do or do not.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

My point was exactly the opposite. The assumption that silence could only apply to voicing (that is, here, writing) and not to a general notion of "expressing" an opinion, of which a vote would be an example, is just that, an assumption.

So, no, I don't think people not expressing an opinion are literally mute. But I also don't just assume people who are apt to be "silent" would vote. In fact, I don't assume they have a definite opinion, because there is no evidence if they do or do not.
If you're going to gaslight us like this at least have the decency to edit your post, lol.

[H]

If you're going to gaslight us like this at least have the decency to edit your post, lol.

Well, if I was not clear, then I apologize, but I said it as best I could at the time.

Also, no, I am not going to edit after the fact, since if I said something stupid, I'll let it stand and deal with it after the fact. It's unclear to me how you read my point as exactly the opposite of what I intended, but then again, I know what I was trying to say, so I have no idea how to read it otherwise.

So, I don't really understand your point, or know how to address it.

[Lava Snacks]

I feel like you need someone to cheer you on, what with your great posts recently.

Therefore, in response to LOLwut, I have found this for you:
http://cdn.webfail.com/upl/img/031ac67d777/post2.jpg

Fucking cringe, mate

[Mr. Safety]

Fucking cringe, mate

https://sayingimages.com/wp-content/uploads/hey-girl-youre-welcome-your-meme.jpg

[Ace/Homebrew]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRErCeG_BtXdjSLeBesTrsuGmEtNN-KEcwJu4fZUI6XKb-3dnpQ-Q

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRErCeG_BtXdjSLeBesTrsuGmEtNN-KEcwJu4fZUI6XKb-3dnpQ-Q

Well in America it used to be synonymous with the "moral majority" but now adays I'd say it best describes non voters who are becoming more active. In part because aging millennials have has enough of the Boomer's shit.
But this isn't the politics thread so I'll leave the lesson at that.

[pettdan]

Well in America it used to be synonymous with the "moral majority" but now adays I'd say it best describes non voters who are becoming more active. In part because aging millennials have has enough of the Boomer's shit.
But this isn't the politics thread so I'll leave the lesson at that.

Well it's basically the politics thread of the Source, isn't it? That's one way to explain/understand the difficultiy in carrying out discussions and why many people seem so offended by the discussions here, they probably are by political discussions too [edit: well I'll have to include myself there too, I can get quite annoyed with some, as I perceive, narrow views sometimes, both in politics and hete] . I get curious about what you mean by boomer's shit but that I guess is not for this thread after all..

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Well it's basically the politics thread of the Source, isn't it? That's one way to explain/understand the difficultiy in carrying out discussions and why many people seem so offended by the discussions here, they probably are by political discussions too [edit: well I'll have to include myself there too, I can get quite annoyed with some, as I perceive, narrow views sometimes, both in politics and hete] . I get curious about what you mean by boomer's shit but that I guess is not for this thread after all..

It's centrism, op.

[Fox]

So when exactly is C19 going to be legal in paper (and Wrenn illegal :tongue: )?

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

So when exactly is C19 going to be legal in paper (and Wrenn illegal :tongue: )?

It was legal yesterday.
Wren will be illegal hopefully a week after Monday. Or Monday itself when playing online

[Mr. Safety]

It was legal yesterday.
Wren will be illegal hopefully a week after Monday. Or Monday itself when playing online

On what planet is Wrenn worthy of a ban? To quote David Spade "hi, i'm earth, have we met?"

Is it powerful? Yes. Is it too powerful? Not by a long shot.

[ahg113]

On what planet is Wrenn worthy of a ban? To quote David Spade "hi, i'm earth, have we met?"

Is it powerful? Yes. Is it too powerful? Not by a long shot.

It's not blue, but very good. Must be OP, keep the status quo, ban it.

/s (?)

[ESG]

It's not blue, but very good. Must be OP, keep the status quo, ban it.

/s (?)

Yeah, I would never ban this card.

Just for the sake of discussion, what does WOTC need to do to keep a good card from being co-opted by the blue shell? On the face of it, RG is a pretty unsplashable mana requirement, but Wrenn and Six most often appears in blue decks. I feel like WOTC made a reasonable effort to make this card good and also not just automatically slot into blue decks, yet here we are.

[phonics]

Yeah, I would never ban this card.

Just for the sake of discussion, what does WOTC need to do to keep a good card from being co-opted by the blue shell? On the face of it, RG is a pretty unsplashable mana requirement, but Wrenn and Six most often appears in blue decks. I feel like WOTC made a reasonable effort to make this card good and also not just automatically slot into blue decks, yet here we are.

The only way I see is to give card selection/ interaction of equivalent power to other colors, since that is the only powerful thing that blue wouldn't co-opt since they already have a plethora of options. Every other powerful printing will either be too expensive (and inefficient to play in non-specialized, non blue shells) or will be able to be splashed in a blue shell. It is an asymmetrical relationship between blue and other colors, where blue gets access to all the goodies that other colors have by virtue of its strengths, yet none of the other colors have access to the same level of goodies blue gets (stack interaction and card selection). Cards like stoneforge, wrenn, deathrite fit in and benefit non blue decks, but blue decks just utilize them better for the most part. People think cards like Griselbrand, Depths and whatnot are just stupid cards, but we are at a point where the only way other colors compete is by playing these 'stupid cards' since most of the time they simply cant compete in terms of stack interaction and card selection while having the same power level blue decks have access to. Cards like Veil of Summer are a step in the right direction I think.

[rufus]

Yeah, I would never ban this card.

Just for the sake of discussion, what does WOTC need to do to keep a good card from being co-opted by the blue shell? RG is a pretty unsplashable...

Anything with low cc and strong synergy with fetchlands is liable to find its way into the xerox shell. People have been playing 3 and 4 color U-shell stuff forever, it's a little silly to expect an RG in the casting cost to be a big hurdle.

[H]

Article isn't available yet, but the link to it says "changes for Standard, Modern and Vintage."

No shocks there, likely all the predictable ones. Although I have no idea what would change is Standard, but I also don't really care.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

On what planet is Wrenn worthy of a ban? To quote David Spade "hi, i'm earth, have we met?"

Is it powerful? Yes. Is it too powerful? Not by a long shot.

Can you cast it off islands? No?
Ban.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Article isn't available yet, but the link to it says "changes for Standard, Modern and Vintage."

No shocks there, likely all the predictable ones. Although I have no idea what would change is Standard, but I also don't really care.

So Gaak axed, and Karn Karntrolled?

[simdude]

Big shakeups in Modern and Vintage and as usual radio silence with legacy. Vintage receives far more attention as a format which is honestly mind-boggling.

>War of the Spark, Modern Horizons, and Core Set 2020 have been among the most impactful sets for Vintage in years.

Could easily apply to Legacy as well but they seem to forget the format exists.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Guys, Modern is getting stone forge!

[H]

So Gaak axed, and Karn Karntrolled?

Way more than that.

https://i.imgur.com/792i9aA.png

[PirateKing]

Anything with low cc and strong synergy with fetchlands is liable to find its way into the xerox shell. People have been playing 3 and 4 color U-shell stuff forever, it's a little silly to expect an RG in the casting cost to be a big hurdle.

The fact that you can cast it off a Tropical Island and Volcanic Island, and aren't radically punished meant it has zero hope of avoiding the blue decks.

[ronco]

So Gaak axed, and Karn Karntrolled?

Standard: Rampaging Ferocidon unbanned
Modern
Hogaak, banned
Faithless looting Banned
Stoneforge - UNBANNED

Vintage
new karn - restricted
Mystic Forge restricted
Mental misstep restricted
GGT restricted
Fastbong is UN-restricted. Effective 8/30, magic online effective noon today, PT, arena effective 9/4.

[Fox]

Guys, Modern is getting stone forge!

Now they too can make a worse UW deck, losing access to wraths. :cool:

[Tylert]

Magic card market doesn't work anymore when i try to access stoneforge mystic's page :)
So people seriously think this is a hot new tech that will win tournaments, caw blade style?

[H]

Big shakeups in Modern and Vintage and as usual radio silence with legacy. Vintage receives far more attention as a format which is honestly mind-boggling.

>War of the Spark, Modern Horizons, and Core Set 2020 have been among the most impactful sets for Vintage in years.

Could easily apply to Legacy as well but they seem to forget the format exists.

I feel just the opposite is actually the fact of the matter. Legacy is in a relatively "good" place, people are playing it and there aren't any "obvious" actions that need to be taken.

People's individual subjected feelings though? Everyone's got a boatload of those.

Vintage was in a place where almost everyone who did play it Online was just not any more. They had to do something. Legacy is fine and in a fine place.

[Glass House]

I'm baffled that Looting was banned. I don't follow Modern, but in what kind of format is a card as innocuous as Looting worthy of a ban? Is Modern even a real format?

[H]

Magic card market doesn't work anymore when i try to access stoneforge mystic's page :)
So people seriously think this is a hot new tech that will win tournaments, caw blade style?

Not really. I mean, I'm sure some people want them to play with them, but likely most of the people jumping on them right now are out the make some "fast-cash" on the spec.

[Fox]

I'm baffled that Looting was banned. I don't follow Modern, but in what kind of format is a card as innocuous as Looting worthy of a ban? Is Modern even a real format?

Modern derives most of its value from GY synergy, and it’s an incredibly linear format. When you have no risk of meaningful interaction (FoW/Wasteland/Daze), Looting becomes an easy and safe pseudo-ramp/mana enabler. Honestly with this banned, they could have probably left Hogaak alone.

Recognizing cards as secretly being mana engines explains this ban. It’s a good ban, and next on the chopping block is going to be Mox Opal (maybe this card already is banned; don’t really keep up with modern other than it’s ability to screw up card prices).

[Barook]

I'm baffled that Looting was banned. I don't follow Modern, but in what kind of format is a card as innocuous as Looting worthy of a ban? Is Modern even a real format?
Looting was stupid in Modern. It was a good, long overdue ban.

I'm more baffled by the SFM unban - not because it's too strong (it's more than fine), but because WotC thinks it's still a dangerous card that might need revaluation later on like Golgari-Grave Troll.

[morgan_coke]

Looting was stupid in Modern. It was a good, long overdue ban.

I'm more baffled by the SFM unban - not because it's too strong (it's more than fine), but because WotC thinks it's still a dangerous card that might need revaluation later on like Golgari-Grave Troll.

I'm amazed that Ancient Stirrings didn't get hit. That card has never been in anything resembling a "fair" deck, its the single best cantrip in Modern, bar none now. That plus the London Mulligan and new Karn means Tron almost always "wins" on turn 3. Maybe Force of Negation is enough to stop it now that everyone doesn't have to spend so many slots on the graveyard, but I kinda doubt it.

SFM is fine, it'll be nice to see creature decks using equipment again. Wish they'd ban Griselbrand and Emrakul, it would be nice to see some fatties that don't immediately end the game see play. Especially Brand, but that'll probably never happen.

[Megadeus]

Looting was stupid in Modern. It was a good, long overdue ban.

I'm more baffled by the SFM unban - not because it's too strong (it's more than fine), but because WotC thinks it's still a dangerous card that might need revaluation later on like Golgari-Grave Troll.
True about Stoneforge the card in standard was pretty busted, but I feel like good answers just didn't exist. Also the deck had Jace, ponder, leak, preordain, and spell pierce. Was pretty nuts

[Mr. Safety]

Way more than that.

https://i.imgur.com/792i9aA.png

Fucking called it, hogaak ban and sfm unban for moden, no changes to legacy.

Looting ban is slightly surprising. This really nerfs a couple strong decks: red/izzet phoenix and traditional dredge. It also hamstrings value-based looting decks like mardu pyromancer and death's shadow variants. I'm not a fan of banning looting, honestly. I feel like Hogaak was enough. *shrug*

Stoneforge up y'all!

[PirateKing]

Was Hogaak popular in Modern? Like I understand a lot of people played him, but was that because it was clearly the best deck, or did people like playing that deck?

I ask because I recall a few times in the past when meaty bans rolled through Modern, there would be a good chunk of players affected that pick up and move to Legacy. I can imagine those that still have the kit for the old Hogaak/Bridge from Below/Altar of Dementia just say fuck it and grab Cabal Therapy and whatever else they're now open to playing. Then for a few months the local meta gets really weird with new faces seeing complex interactions for the first time and a bunch of budget stuff while they either buy up or decide maybe the format isn't for them.

Based on a lot of talk, it seemed like people hated to play against him but also kind of hated to play with him as well, so maybe everybody just rejoices and nothing changes? Last one I remember was a bunch of new players all coming after Splinter Twin got banned. But Splinter Twin seemed to have a more equal representation on either side, there were lots of For/Against discussions. So either the pro-Hogaak crowd is shamed into silence, or they just don't exist, in which case the ban won't really change the format population.

[H]

Was Hogaak popular in Modern? Like I understand a lot of people played him, but was that because it was clearly the best deck, or did people like playing that deck?

I mean, I guess somewhere there are people who like playing Hogaak in Modern. Then again, there are people who like...well, lets just leave it at that.

Not that I am actively hunting it, but I have yet to come across any comment from anyone disagreeing with the Hogaak ban. I've seen a few people quibble with the Looting ban, but really no outright complaints. I don't think you will see any "mass exodus" on the back of this. There might be some disgruntled Phoenix players, but I doubt there are really all that many that didn't entertain the possibility this might happen.

[Megadeus]

I don't think I knew anyone that thought Hogaak shouldn't have been banned. I think the people that played it were just like, yeah this deck is dumb as shit but I'll play it and win while it's legal

[LOLWut]

Since 2011:

Modern- 24 bannings
Vintage- 12 restrictions
Legacy- 6 bannings

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Was Hogaak popular in Modern? Like I understand a lot of people played him, but was that because it was clearly the best deck, or did people like playing that deck?

I ask because I recall a few times in the past when meaty bans rolled through Modern, there would be a good chunk of players affected that pick up and move to Legacy. I can imagine those that still have the kit for the old Hogaak/Bridge from Below/Altar of Dementia just say fuck it and grab Cabal Therapy and whatever else they're now open to playing. Then for a few months the local meta gets really weird with new faces seeing complex interactions for the first time and a bunch of budget stuff while they either buy up or decide maybe the format isn't for them.

Based on a lot of talk, it seemed like people hated to play against him but also kind of hated to play with him as well, so maybe everybody just rejoices and nothing changes? Last one I remember was a bunch of new players all coming after Splinter Twin got banned. But Splinter Twin seemed to have a more equal representation on either side, there were lots of For/Against discussions. So either the pro-Hogaak crowd is shamed into silence, or they just don't exist, in which case the ban won't really change the format population.

I heard a lot of people were grumbling about having to play hogaak, and Hogaak was only at three or so bucks so I doubt there's a lot of Gaak Stans hanging around.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Was Hogaak popular in Modern? Like I understand a lot of people played him, but was that because it was clearly the best deck, or did people like playing that deck?

Yeah, it was. At the GP this weekend it was 13% of day 1 decks (the next closest being 8% mono-red, the deck most likely to beat it), which progressed into 22% of the day 2 decks, and then 5/8 of the top 8 and 3/4 of the top 4 decks. The deck was far and away the most broken deck Modern has ever seen, by at least any statistical metric you want to use. It warped the metagame around it so hard that Leyline of the Void was the most played card in the format, and even then it could pretty easily win through it with 4x Assassin's Trophy and 4x Force of Vigor post-board.

The biggest problem was that the only card that could effectively cast it from being played quickly enough was Leyline, and even cards like Path to Exile weren't always effective since they had Carrion Feeder to dodge it. I haven't seen a single person who was outraged by that ban, which is extremely rare for the internet. Everyone saw it coming.

Faithless Looting reactions also seem to be surprisingly tame. It takes a lot of fun fringe decks out of contention, which sucks a lot, but it's kind of similar to how Sensei's Divining Top got hit in Legacy. Rock decks were playing it as a 2-of, and so were some other non-blue decks that wanted the card selection, but they weren't the ones abusing it. People seem generally pretty happy about these.

And people are very happy about Stoneforge Mystic. I wonder if the community outcry before the ban list update pushed WotC into unbanning it, since there was so many calls to unban it.

[jrw1985]

So I was looking up metagame cards on tcdecks last week. I don't play Modern but I decided to check out what their metagame looked like. Leyline of the Void was the #1 played card by a wide margin. The rest of the Top 10 were basically the Hogaak deck (Hogaak, Faithless Looting, Bloodghast). I am, therefor, not at all surprised by the bannings. It looked like the format was pretty fucked.

[Matsu]

StoneForge Mistyc in Modern, it is not only Caw Blade.
She opens some options for D&T, Dead Guy Ale, Maverick or WBG. It is a fresh wind to the format especially after the Hoggaak Era.

I really expected anything in legacy, maybe next time.

[Megadeus]

I think (perhaps falsely) that with GP ATL looming they didn't want to ban or unban anything in fear of people getting pissed for whatever reason and complaining or cancelling their GP trips

[Lava Snacks]

Are the best card selection cards in Modern now Serum Visions, Opt, and Ancient Stirrings?

:eek: I wonder what I'll draw next

[Lord Seth]

Modern derives most of its value from GY synergy, and it’s an incredibly linear format. When you have no risk of meaningful interaction (FoW/Wasteland/Daze), Looting becomes an easy and safe pseudo-ramp/mana enabler. Honestly with this banned, they could have probably left Hogaak alone. Absolutely no way. Hogaak was perfectly capable of crazy powerful starts without Faithless Looting. Yeah, the loss of Faithless Looting hurts the deck, but banning just Faithless Looting also means you're hurting other decks that could fight against Hogaak.

The real question is whether the Faithless Looting ban was necessary. It's definitely a powerful card but I do question if it was overpowered outside of Hogaak decks. Maybe they were worried about Phoenix getting too good with Hogaak gone.


I'm amazed that Ancient Stirrings didn't get hit. That card has never been in anything resembling a "fair" deck, its the single best cantrip in Modern, bar none now. That plus the London Mulligan and new Karn means Tron almost always "wins" on turn 3. Maybe Force of Negation is enough to stop it now that everyone doesn't have to spend so many slots on the graveyard, but I kinda doubt it.Even if Ancient Stirrings was too good--and I will contend it is not--it would make no sense to ban it now when none of the decks it's seeing play in are actually all that great right now. Maybe that'll shift around with Hogaak getting banned but I doubt it. Tron has the same weaknesses it's always had, while Hardened Scales and Amulet Titan aren't even Tier 1. Even if there is reason to ban Ancient Stirrings, there's no reason right now.


SFM is fine, it'll be nice to see creature decks using equipment again. Wish they'd ban Griselbrand and Emrakul, it would be nice to see some fatties that don't immediately end the game see play. Especially Brand, but that'll probably never happen.Are we talking Modern or Legacy here? Griselbrand and Emrakul are practically nonentities in Modern right now, so I'd think you were referring to Legacy, but you didn't indicate a shift in formats.


Yeah, it was. At the GP this weekend it was 13% of day 1 decks (the next closest being 8% mono-red, the deck most likely to beat it), which progressed into 22% of the day 2 decks, and then 5/8 of the top 8 and 3/4 of the top 4 decks. The deck was far and away the most broken deck Modern has ever seen, by at least any statistical metric you want to use.Hogaak wasn't as bad as Eldrazi was.

[Ronald Deuce]

I've got a number of questions regarding the new bans and restrictions. None of them are strictly Legacy-related, but I'd like to hear what people think.
—Is this connected to the London Mulligan? How strongly? (For the record, my answers: YES, and VERY.)
—Who actually wanted this? I get a ban/restriction or two in a format or two, but this is six cards at once across two formats—and some of those cards (Troll, Misstep, Looting) have been played for some time. I guess two unbans and an unrestriction (wc?) should sweeten the deal, but uh—I just don't get it.
—With the wording of the Modern announcement, is it fair to say that the only kind of Magic Wizards likes is "swingin' with dudes," and consequently, that the company will use the banlist to enforce this aggressively regardless of players' opinions? My take is that that's what they've done here, be it for better or worse.
—What the hell's happening to Vintage? Should we even care?

[Fox]

Absolutely no way. Hogaak was perfectly capable of crazy powerful starts without Faithless Looting. Yeah, the loss of Faithless Looting hurts the deck, but banning just Faithless Looting also means you're hurting other decks that could fight against Hogaak.

The real question is whether the Faithless Looting ban was necessary. It's definitely a powerful card but I do question if it was overpowered outside of Hogaak decks. Maybe they were worried about Phoenix getting too good with Hogaak gone.

I would still maintain that the [pseudo] mana-engine of Faithless Looting made it a better ban. Hogaak definitely exploited that engine, but so does Bloodghast, keyword dredge, keyword delve, Phoenix, etc...

A 1cmc 1/1 that mills over the top 3, and can't 'tutor' cards from hand to yard, and can't add consistency is not likely to keep Hogaak at the top of the metagame. Looting is pretty highly non-committal in that it allows you to play normal magic (1-for-1, little need to sequence) with a better mana shortcut than everyone else.

Without Looting, Hogaak would fall off on his own due to a combination of lack of consistency or having his power eclipsed. Looting will always try and make itself a problem, scavenging for any card that it can make 'cheaty' mana with.

[Purple Blood]

I would still maintain that the [pseudo] mana-engine of Faithless Looting made it a better ban. Hogaak definitely exploited that engine, but so does Bloodghast, keyword dredge, keyword delve, Phoenix, etc...

A 1cmc 1/1 that mills over the top 3, and can't 'tutor' cards from hand to yard, and can't add consistency is not likely to keep Hogaak at the top of the metagame. Looting is pretty highly non-committal in that it allows you to play normal magic (1-for-1, little need to sequence) with a better mana shortcut than everyone else.

Without Looting, Hogaak would fall off on his own due to a combination of lack of consistency or having his power eclipsed. Looting will always try and make itself a problem, scavenging for any card that it can make 'cheaty' mana with.

Do the most busted Hogaak openings even involve casting looting? As far as I can tell the nut draw is T1: Supplier; T2: land, recur Bloodghast(s), cast Wayfinder, cast Hogaak, recur Vengevine(s).

Looting had to go. It's been the centerpiece of every degenerate deck in the format for a long while. Without banning Hogaak you would probably just end up with some Phoenix or Dredge deck dominating the meta.

The thing about Modern is there is no FoW or Daze. The closest thing to that free permission that stops degeneracy is Thoughtseize and Inquisition but discard is nearly meaningless when all the best decks benefit from dumping cards in the graveyard.

I think the thought process here, particularly with the simultaneous unbanning of SFM, is let's see what the meta looks like with a fair midrange deck like UW Stoneblade at the top of the format. The approach was pretty heavy handed doing three things at once but I think this could quite easily end up salvaging a format that has been dog shit for years.

[Lord Seth]

I would still maintain that the [pseudo] mana-engine of Faithless Looting made it a better ban. Hogaak definitely exploited that engine, but so does Bloodghast, keyword dredge, keyword delve, Phoenix, etc...

A 1cmc 1/1 that mills over the top 3, and can't 'tutor' cards from hand to yard, and can't add consistency is not likely to keep Hogaak at the top of the metagame. Looting is pretty highly non-committal in that it allows you to play normal magic (1-for-1, little need to sequence) with a better mana shortcut than everyone else.

Without Looting, Hogaak would fall off on his own due to a combination of lack of consistency or having his power eclipsed. Looting will always try and make itself a problem, scavenging for any card that it can make 'cheaty' mana with.
I think you're underestimating how powerful Hogaak is without Faithless Looting; Looting wasn't even responsible for the most absurd starts in the deck. But let's suppose that it's possible Faithless Looting would have been enough.

Wizards of the Coast just banned a card (Bridge from Below) to weaken but not kill the deck, which didn't do the trick. Now you suggest they should again ban a card to weaken but not kill the deck. Well, what if that doesn't work? Then they have to ban another card. Why dance around banning Hogaak like that? This isn't like Workshop or Brainstorm, where there's a good number of players who really like having the card around so trying to ban around the cards at least has merit in pleasing the players--there's no incentive to ban around Hogaak.

Banning Hogaak but not Faithless Looting is defensible, but banning Faithless Looting but not Hogaak is just silly.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Hogaak wasn't as bad as Eldrazi was.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/cn7alr/article_mc4_data_deepdive_hogaak_and_graveyard/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ModernMagic/comments/cp4dym/hogaaks_emergency_ban_case_data_and_historical/

It was nearly the exact same level, although allowed to live longer and therefore warp the metagame even harder.

[Dice_Box]

As someone who has spent the last two weeks playing Hogaak Depths, I am willing to state with compleand total certainty that Faithless has played no part in my broken Hogaak plays.

As someone who has played Modern for a few years I can say I am 100% on board with Faithless getting the axe. I have never seen it do anything positive. People will say "Stirrings next" but my answer there is that the cards popularity is waning. A lot of more recent printings have removed the card from decks that use to depend upon it, reducing its penetration to mostly two decks. (Scales and Tron.)

While the card may require (and in the past meet the requirements for) a ban, it currently does not.

[Smuggo]

So Hogaak, the card from the recent set Modern Horizons that contained a bunch of cards specifically designed for Modern has been banned from Modern... Good job Wizards.

Anyway, glad there was no changes to Legacy, format seems in a good place right now.

[Tylert]

So Hogaak, the card from the recent set Modern Horizons that contained a bunch of cards specifically designed for Modern has been banned from Modern... Good job Wizards.

Anyway, glad there was no changes to Legacy, format seems in a good place right now.

I'm not really keen on the fact that one of the budget decks of the format is pushed out of tier 1 status (Talking about Death and taxes) by wrenn and six.

[Smuggo]

I'm not really keen on the fact that one of the budget decks of the format is pushed out of tier 1 status (Talking about Death and taxes) by wrenn and six.

D&T has been up there for a very long time so not especially concerned it has dropped back a bit. And I'm sure there must be some options for them to fight it post board. Devout Decree maybe?

[Barook]

So Hogaak, the card from the recent set Modern Horizons that contained a bunch of cards specifically designed for Modern has been banned from Modern... Good job Wizards.

Anyway, glad there was no changes to Legacy, format seems in a good place right now.
It's good that Wizards is still trying to push the envelope. What isn't good is that they still aren't learning from past mistakes, e.g. that Delve is broken as shit. DTT and Treasure Cruise should have been enough to teach them, yet here we are.

While Narset isn't broken, it still takes the same flawed design idea as Mental Misstep - one-sided card draw hate that is best run in blue decks. Why the effect of draw hate is so rare in general (compared to GY hate for example), and then put into blue AND being one-sided is beyond me.

[Megadeus]

I've got a number of questions regarding the new bans and restrictions. None of them are strictly Legacy-related, but I'd like to hear what people think.
—Is this connected to the London Mulligan? How strongly? (For the record, my answers: YES, and VERY.)
—Who actually wanted this? I get a ban/restriction or two in a format or two, but this is six cards at once across two formats—and some of those cards (Troll, Misstep, Looting) have been played for some time. I guess two unbans and an unrestriction (wc?) should sweeten the deal, but uh—I just don't get it.
—With the wording of the Modern announcement, is it fair to say that the only kind of Magic Wizards likes is "swingin' with dudes," and consequently, that the company will use the banlist to enforce this aggressively regardless of players' opinions? My take is that that's what they've done here, be it for better or worse.
—What the hell's happening to Vintage? Should we even care?

I think almost everyone agrees with the bans and unbans in modern. Looting is the best draw spell/graveyard combo enabler in the format. Gaak is just fucking stupid. Stone forge I'm not sure will even be good.

As for vintage karn and forge were just dumb as shit in vintage, misstep was miserable and restricted the playability of a ton of cards that otherwise are good ways to fight the broken cards in vintage, but because they were 1 drops you either don't play them or you play them + your own missteps. Basically the same reason the card was banned in legacy and modern. Phyrexian Mana is probably as much of if not more of a mistake than delve has proven to be

[PirateKing]

D&T has been up there for a very long time so not especially concerned it has dropped back a bit. And I'm sure there must be some options for them to fight it post board. Devout Decree maybe?

Force of Virtue is all you need

[Smuggo]

Force of Virtue is all you need

Ah, nice tech

[Fox]

I dunno about you guys, but I can't wait to trade some crappy art GP SFM promo foils 1-to-1 for Wrenn. We're so close! :laugh:

Kinda funny though how this could actually lead to an uptick in Wrenn in legacy; that's a pretty low cost [trade] vs the ~$90 he's been at.

[Smuggo]

Yeah kinda wish I hadn't sold my promo SFMs last year now.

[morgan_coke]

Absolutely no way. Hogaak was perfectly capable of crazy powerful starts without Faithless Looting. Yeah, the loss of Faithless Looting hurts the deck, but banning just Faithless Looting also means you're hurting other decks that could fight against Hogaak.

The real question is whether the Faithless Looting ban was necessary. It's definitely a powerful card but I do question if it was overpowered outside of Hogaak decks. Maybe they were worried about Phoenix getting too good with Hogaak gone.

Even if Ancient Stirrings was too good--and I will contend it is not--it would make no sense to ban it now when none of the decks it's seeing play in are actually all that great right now. Maybe that'll shift around with Hogaak getting banned but I doubt it. Tron has the same weaknesses it's always had, while Hardened Scales and Amulet Titan aren't even Tier 1. Even if there is reason to ban Ancient Stirrings, there's no reason right now.

Are we talking Modern or Legacy here? Griselbrand and Emrakul are practically nonentities in Modern right now, so I'd think you were referring to Legacy, but you didn't indicate a shift in formats.

Hogaak wasn't as bad as Eldrazi was.

No, I meant Emrak and Brand in Modern. People forget, but before Phoenix and Hogaak made various GY hate cards the most played stuff in the format, there were a lot of stupid Modern decks based around Goryo's Vengeance stupidity, but that deck did take a big hit with the loss of looting. We'll see how the meta shakes out I guess. And I think that Tron alone justifies banning Stirrings at this point. The deck gained so much from the London Mulligan and new Karn, it's just objectively better than anything else you can be doing in modern right now.

[Ronald Deuce]

Force of Virtue is all you need

Or Giver of Runes. Or Isamaru, Hound of Konda.

You can even bounce Isamaru with Karakas if it gets P-Fired.

[Phoenix Ignition]

No, I meant Emrak and Brand in Modern. People forget, but before Phoenix and Hogaak made various GY hate cards the most played stuff in the format, there were a lot of stupid Modern decks based around Goryo's Vengeance stupidity, but that deck did take a big hit with the loss of looting. We'll see how the meta shakes out I guess. And I think that Tron alone justifies banning Stirrings at this point. The deck gained so much from the London Mulligan and new Karn, it's just objectively better than anything else you can be doing in modern right now.

I hate these decks, but they were inconsistent enough before that they weren't really worth the bad feelings that a ban would have brought from players, "LOL modern gets bans on decks that don't even see regular top 8 what a trash format," etc.

Them losing Faithless is absolutely gigantic in their consistency, which sucked before. I think they'll still see niche play, but are going to be much more inconsistent. Neoform on the other hand might bring back turn 1 Gris into a playable option.

[Michael Keller]

I hate these decks, but they were inconsistent enough before that they weren't really worth the bad feelings that a ban would have brought from players, "LOL modern gets bans on decks that don't even see regular top 8 what a trash format," etc.

Them losing Faithless is absolutely gigantic in their consistency, which sucked before. I think they'll still see niche play, but are going to be much more inconsistent. Neoform on the other hand might bring back turn 1 Gris into a playable option.

Keep in mind Force of Negation is now a thing - if that becomes more of a thing.

[Fox]

I hate these decks, but they were inconsistent enough before that they weren't really worth the bad feelings that a ban would have brought from players, "LOL modern gets bans on decks that don't even see regular top 8 what a trash format," etc.

Them losing Faithless is absolutely gigantic in their consistency, which sucked before. I think they'll still see niche play, but are going to be much more inconsistent. Neoform on the other hand might bring back turn 1 Gris into a playable option.

Banning cards that were broken by fair [normal 1-for-1 slanted] strategies is nothing new. ANT didn't get Probe banned, Grixis Delver did. DDFT & Painter didn't get SDT banned, miracles did. Saying Goryo's decks weren't hurting anyone isn't a reason to not ban a card that was clearly being exploited by non-committal strategies.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Banning cards that were broken by fair [normal 1-for-1 slanted] strategies is nothing new. ANT didn't get Probe banned, Grixis Delver did. DDFT & Painter didn't get SDT banned, miracles did. Saying Goryo's decks weren't hurting anyone isn't a reason to not ban a card that was clearly being exploited by non-committal strategies.

Can you rephrase the last sentence? I can't understand what you mean.

[Fox]

Can you rephrase the last sentence? I can't understand what you mean.

Phoenix-style decks aren't really combo, they aren't really disruptable. These types of decks do the most damage with cards like Looting. In the same way, Grixis Delver was not a disruptable deck, it hijacked Probe and got the card banned. You're not allowed to play fair decks and exploit mana/pseudo-mana loopholes (particularly when the loopholes are cantrips/consistency-positive).

No one wanted to ban Looting b/c Goryo's existed. In the same way, no one wanted Probe banned b/c a deck like Storm was using it. It's unfortunate that decks like these are hit b/c of the sins of fair strats, but you still ban the problem card. You really need to be on top of problem cards like these when you have Fetchlands allowing fair decks linear & reliable access to 3-4 color tools.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Thank you. Yes, I agree.

[Amon Amarth]

Is anyone else as excited as I am at the prospect that wizards is thinking of unrestricting NECROPOTENCE(?!?!) in Vintage? That seems fucking nuts. And awesome. Plus, now you can play some broken Lands deck with Fastbond in Vintage; that is really exciting. I wonder if some base Black aggro-control thing could pop up with Necro unrestricted.

[Michael Keller]

Is anyone else as excited as I am at the prospect that wizards is thinking of unrestricting NECROPOTENCE(?!?!) in Vintage? That seems fucking nuts. And awesome. Plus, now you can play some broken Lands deck with Fastbond in Vintage; that is really exciting. I wonder if some base Black aggro-control thing could pop up with Necro unrestricted.

Where was this info posted?

[H]

Where was this info posted?

In the Banned and Restricted announcement itself: (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/august-26-2019-banned-and-restricted-announcement-2019-08-26?t)


Since our philosophy is that Vintage should be about playing with access to all of Magic, we periodically re-examine the restricted list for cards that can create new decks and play patterns, even if they come with some risk. Recently, many players have suggested Fastbond as a card they would enjoy building with four copies of. Since most Vintage decks rely heavily on artifact mana and play fewer lands, chances are that a deck built around Fastbond would look quite different from anything in the current metagame. Other cards we've discussed unrestricting in the future are Windfall and Necropotence.

[Dice_Box]

Ban:

Dark Depths

All these should be banned imo.

Dark Depths

IMO Ban these for healthier meta

Dark Depths

So the card is doing really well in the format and it's beating up on Wrenn. I am going to go with a solid no on this foolish idea. Or, to quote someone better than I at this:

Giving voice to the silent majority: Nah.

[Fox]

If only there were some 1-drop with 2 toughness which could blank Wrenn and Arcanist's yard abuse...
If only there were some 1-drop that allowed different colors of Delver to challenge RUG...
If only there were some 1-drop that could eat mighty Hogaak...

Oh the irony of banning the wrong card [DRS] instead of Hymn. Mayhaps next time ban the card that made DRS unplayable by all not-Czech decks - except Elves (or Grixis Delver, though only as long as Probe was legal b/c they were never beating Czech without Probe/Therapy cheese). Methinks it's high time we allowed DRS to be brought back and played in random decks while all the xerox Wrenn shells add him as well and play the soul-killing form of mirror matches they so crave.

[mistercakes]

Do you really believe that the decks running w&6 wouldn't also run DRS? The format would be a no brainer 1 deck format.

[Fox]

Do you really believe that the decks running w&6 wouldn't also run DRS? The format would be a no brainer 1 deck format.

Oh they're gonna be 4c no matter what between Wrenn and Vista/Astrolabe. Also, I made the point that they'd just run xerox Wrenn with DRS in my last post. The difference between this and Czech, is that playing the xerox shell without Hymn means you can't obliterate, flashback obliterate an opponent's hand; this allows not xerox to play DRS as they can have a hand with which to spend mana.

Recall that in Czech times, you didn't have a hand...but even if you did, and you untapped with your DRS, there were exactly zero plays you had that could beat Shatter/Shock or flying deathtouch. Now if you tried to play xerox Wrenn/DRS vs not-xerox Wrenn/DRS, you're no longer auto-winning (and Hymn would be gone, so you can forget total hand destruction & hiding behind Strix).

So there's no doubt DRS is a miserable card, but his text box and toughness need to be back in the format due to recent printings. Just need to do the prisoner exchange with Hymn so that non-blue DRS/Wrenn can actually compete vs Czech (Wrenn kills Strix, and dodges Shatter/Shock). This would be responsible format management: an environment friendly to increasing non-blue presence; decks which exist to troll down Delver presence.

Now let's go to the next level of where the format is: the key play is 2cmc, ergo increase Spell Snare -> increase SnT's position -> Chancellor exists to hate out fair decks -> Grisel deck helps SnT's Grisel dodge bears. So DRS is good at breaking the positive feedback Grisel loop. Now it isn't great right, DRS can't get past a Chancellor trigger to come online before turn 3 in the not-blue deck...introducing Once Upon a Time to vindicate Chancellor triggers and bring DRS online 1 turn quicker.

There really isn't a better time to unban him; for as miserable as this card is, and no matter how stupid DRS into Wrenn is, it'd be a net positive force in terms of format balance. DnT is already getting beat up (this also helps SnT), there really isn't much of an issue I can see with beating a dead horse by unleashing slew of not-blue DRS/Wrenn (and obligatory Engineers) which would further suppress DnT as they wait for new power creep'd duders to bail them out.

[porcupinetreeman]

So the card is doing really well in the format and it's beating up on Wrenn. I am going to go with a solid no on this foolish idea. Or, to quote someone better than I at this:

You didn't quote me correctly tho. I think banned that along with a couple others would be healthy.

Griselbrand
Dark Depths
Brainstorm
Ponder
Show and Tell

[mistercakes]

DRS would just make this format more of what it already is.

[Dice_Box]

You didn't quote me correctly tho.

Oh no, I quoted you perfectly. Your out of your dam tree on Depths.

In other news, there is no world where banning Hymn and leaving DRS in the format was going to solve anything. And I say this as someone that wholeheartedly misses being able to play 8 Strip mines with GQ. Card needed to die.

Will admit it would be a neat answer to Wrenn though, but fixing the colours perfect so Wrenn is always a second turn play does not sound appealing.

[Fox]

DRS would just make this format more of what it already is.
Looking at mtgtop8 you've got Lands, Loam, Jund, and some amount of Maverick'y-Depths'y stuff going on which use Wrenn on the not-blue side of things. Lands is a pretty distinctly different strategy, and Loam is only ever going to run 1x DRS b/c of Chalice. The left-over are ~1% plus unknown [Mav. Depths'y].

You unban DRS and the non-blue share of legacy DRS+Wrenn decks is going to increase, and there is no reason to think a blue version of the same thing could hate them out of the meta to the extent that Czech did. You played a not-Elves, not-Grixis Delver deck back in the Czech days and your deck was worse Czech regardless of what colors or cards you chose to put around DRS - there was literally no combination that was ever going to beat Strix and Kcomm backed up by Snap/Hymn, precisely b/c you either had no hand or anything you could do died to the first 2 (Strix/Kcomm).

So imagine Hymn is exchanged for DRS, and Wrenn in these not-blue decks makes Strix unplayable and doesn't die to Kcomm. These not-blue decks can suddenly pose significant problems to 4c Wrenn [xerox], as well as tournament-run-ending problems for RUG Delver. There's a significant difference between not-blue DRS decks having different cards + no hand vs having different cards + a hand.

You can't undo Wrenn, Engineer, Vista, Astro, and (to a lesser extent) Dreadhorde; they're here to stay and they're going to be played mixed together in 4c soup. There are too many bans you have to make to reverse this, and WotC keeps printing rainbow Fetches (though the new one isn't quite so good). You can't really make the format "more of what it already is" - but you can sunder the soup into three distinct flavors: xerox value pile, RUG Delver, not-blue DRS/Wrenn. Right now there's a comparative dearth of not-blue Wrenn + dude decks; unbanning DRS would inject diversity into this population.

Edit: one more thing on "more of what it already is" - unbanned DRS is anything but "more of what it already is" to RUG Delver.
---
@Dice_Box
Wrenn decks are already stupid, so adding DRS to their mirrors will only increase the stupidity factor. If anyone has ever played or watched Czech vs. Czech or Grixis Control vs. Grixis Control, it's fairly soul-killing. Like people have to get burned out and move on to different deck, because given enough time playing standard (i.e. hellbent jamming off the top mirrors), you just can't do it anymore. At least if you're playing something not-DRS/Wrenn you can at least dumpster them with yard hate. At the end of the day, Wrenn & co (aided by Depths and Chalice-combo'y decks) are keeping CB and Hymn marginalized, and when that happens everyone wins.

[mistercakes]

there's some validity to the points, but it's not really a discussion worth having.

[Megadeus]

I like how the theory is that if Deathrite were legal more non blue DRS Wren decks would pop up than DRS Wren Blue decks. How many times do you need to lie to yourself that all these cards are better than brainstorm and ponder?

[Fox]

@Megadeus no doubt they'd be played together in blue as well, but they're still playing all their cards to board which makes Brainstorm quite a bit less impactful. Ponder gives them great mana fixing early, but Once Upon a Time is a pretty good equalizer. If your deck has ~20 slots of lands, and another 20 slots of Wrenn/DRS/FoW/BS/Ponder...you still have to beat whatever the not-blue Wrenn/DRS guy is doing. So blue deck needs to get to 16 blue so we'll add 2x JTMS and 2x SCM; they need some interactive black stuff so 2x Seize, 2x Decay, 1x Engineer, 1x card that deals with Lage, b/c DRS is back they'll need at least 2 more 1-drop removals that kill him, let's add like 2x Lilly, and 1x Kcomm or two b/c value and a 1x Gurmag. So ~4 slots left, and we'll just say this will be 4x Arcanist to fill out the list (though this would be a stupid choice to make non-blue's 4x sideboard Leyline better against an even wider slice of the meta). That's a pile of good cards, there's a lot of value, but you don't automatically win against non-blue DRS/Wrenn. This is all probably more analysis than we need though; the first deck to stick DRS + Wrenn and find a Wasteland should just win. You've got one deck with some cantrips to find Wrenn quicker vs opponent who has a higher density of things that check or pressure Wrenn...seems like a toss-up.

One thing for sure though, is RUG Delver has to deal with way more significant problems. The best Delver deck becomes 1-Trop Grixis [likely], except this time none of that Probe/Therapy stuff so good luck beating the bigger mana version of the same strategy with more 2-for-1s, and by the way there's a non-blue version floating around too (and if there's one thing they can beat, it's Delver).

Yes cantrip cartel is great and all, but old Grixis Delver and Czech never had to play against the not-blue DRS deck without total hand obliteration tools. Not so easy to call this one in favor of Ponder/BS anymore.

[porcupinetreeman]

Oh no, I quoted you perfectly. Your out of your dam tree on Depths.

In other news, there is no world where banning Hymn and leaving DRS in the format was going to solve anything. And I say this as someone that wholeheartedly misses being able to play 8 Strip mines with GQ. Card needed to die.

Will admit it would be a neat answer to Wrenn though, but fixing the colours perfect so Wrenn is always a second turn play does not sound appealing.

http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=22880&f=LE

ya, dark depths isn't broken

[Fox]

Seems like a healthy top 8, all decks you can choose to easily beat with a few SB slots. Besides, it‘s always nice to see a top 8 full of decks that are trying to do something.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Seems like a healthy top 8, all decks you can choose to easily beat with a few SB slots. Besides, it‘s always nice to see a top 8 full of decks that are trying to do something.

Four outta eight being the same deck isn't healthy, lol

[Fox]

Four outta eight being the same deck isn't healthy, lol

It's also Depths, their deck has too many moving pieces to adapt to defend itself. If people want to beat it, they can. It doesn't really have intrinsic staying power and even among tier 1-1.5 decks, it's got pretty horrid matchups vs Lands and DnT. If we're giving Depths enough credit to routinely keep Wrenn decks out of top 8s by itself, just snipe 'em with a DnT meta call.

[LOLWut]

Yeah, let's ban the deck that had less than half the top 8 representation as the top deck last month lul

[Tylert]

It's also Depths, their deck has too many moving pieces to adapt to defend itself. If people want to beat it, they can. It doesn't really have intrinsic staying power and even among tier 1-1.5 decks, it's got pretty horrid matchups vs Lands and DnT. If we're giving Depths enough credit to routinely keep Wrenn decks out of top 8s by itself, just snipe 'em with a DnT meta call.

Problem is that D&T has a pretty rough match up versus Wrenn and six decks...

[Smuggo]

http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=22880&f=LE

ya, dark depths isn't broken

Seems fine to me. Also I always find Asia meta seems to set off down its own path for some reason and we might not see quite the same trends in Europe or NA.

[Mr. Safety]

Jesus fucking Christ, can everyone get their left nut to tell their right nut to calm down. Dark Depths is not a bannable card in legacy.

[Fox]

Problem is that D&T has a pretty rough match up versus Wrenn and six decks...

Right, so if Wrenn loses to Depths, and Depths loses to DnT, and DnT loses to Wrenn...then there's no issue. In reality though, a Wrenn deck can beat both of these strategies with SB cards. Depths doing well every so often isn't that concerning, they have a ~15% winrate pre-loaded vs DnT (in the case that the deck was 'too good') and Crop Rot/Reclaimer/Hexmage/Mox/Depths/Stage is way too many slots invested in doing the thing to ward off a maindeck or sideboard strategy that wants to beat them.

[FTW]

Seems fine to me. Also I always find Asia meta seems to set off down its own path for some reason and we might not see quite the same trends in Europe or NA.

Yeah, that meta was so known the #6 Dragon Stompy deck ran 2 maindeck Blood Sun over Magus of the Moon, likely as Depths hate.

[Dice_Box]

Jesus fucking Christ, can everyone get their left nut to tell their right nut to calm down. Dark Depths is not a bannable card in legacy.

No, you are objectively wrong. porcupinetreeman has shown us all the error of our ways and the card MUST BE BANNED FOR THE GOOD OF ALL THAT IS HOLY. Until you know, next month when it gets pushed out of the format and no one looks at it again for 3 months. But who cares that the deck is fragile to a land whos popularity is growing.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

No, you are objectively wrong. porcupinetreeman has shown us all the error of our ways and the card MUST BE BANNED FOR THE GOOD OF ALL THAT IS HOLY. Until you know, next month when it gets pushed out of the format and no one looks at it again for 3 months. But who cares that the deck is fragile to a land whos popularity is growing.
Are you seriously saying that because one depths deck is being replaced by another depths deck everything is fine?

[Dice_Box]

Are you seriously saying that because one depths deck is being replaced by another depths deck everything is fine?
Nope, I'm saying that since the best deck in the format is moving towards having Crop Rotation and Karakas, Depths is looking like it's going to have a harder time steamrolling events unaposed.

The only time things get banned in Legacy is when it's proven the format is unable to self correct. If this is seen as one of those times it's Wrenn that's more likely to be deemed an issue, not Depths.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

>W6/Plague Engineer is printed
>Decks that play them push Depths worst matchups out of the format
>Depths is good against these
>Depths is played

Clearly Depths is inherently too good for legacy, the braintrust that is the source has done it again

[Amon Amarth]

I can't imagine Dark Depths being banned atm. There just aren't a ton of White decks for a few different reasons and those are the best cards for trying to interact with Turbo Depths. Once you see more Karakas and friends Depths will lose meta share.

New B&R announcement coming up. I'm pretty sure we are all aware of this song and dance. Nothing will change. There just aren't many cards on the ban list they could unban that would impact much of anything and a handful that wouldn't do much. Oh well.

[Mr. Safety]

I don't see any changes happening to Legacy. There isn't really any noise about anything being too good; there is some squeaking about Dark Depths in here, but it doesn't even come close to a saturation point for banning. There will always be a 'best' combo deck in Legacy whether it's Storm, Show and Tell, Reanimator, or Dark Depths. They take turns depending on metagame shifts (speaking of which, Storm is on the rise again due to the mid-range slugfests giving them a window.)

Modern I think has had enough shake-up lately to last about a year. I predict no changes there either.

[Dice_Box]

I have been watching vids of the Uzra deck, the Paradoxical one. While I do believe that no changes will be made this cycle the playstyle of the deck will force intervention soon. Even if it comes up against a natural predator I think it's strong enough to stay on the top tables and thus, be reacted to.

[Fox]

After laughing at how awful it was watching Golos in standard on SCG thing yesterday, I imagine Field of the Dead is getting the axe - sooner rather than later.

[Mr. Safety]

I have been watching vids of the Uzra deck, the Paradoxical one. While I do believe that no changes will be made this cycle the playstyle of the deck will force intervention soon. Even if it comes up against a natural predator I think it's strong enough to stay on the top tables and thus, be reacted to.

This might be the final straw for Mox Opal. I don't think it will slow the deck down significantly with a ban, but it's been on their radar for a long time.

[Dice_Box]

This might be the final straw for Mox Opal. I don't think it will slow the deck down significantly with a ban, but it's been on their radar for a long time.
Takes it from 7 Moxen to 4. I'm not sure that's good enough to change anything. No, I think Urza is the issue.

[Mr. Safety]

Takes it from 7 Moxen to 4. I'm not sure that's good enough to change anything. No, I think Urza is the issue.

I'm out of touch...Mox Amber finally coming into it's own. Looks like it's a $50 card now. I also find it hilarious that it's still listed as a 'control' deck as Whir Prison on mtgtop8, lol. Emry is an insane addition to that deck. Sneaky combo deck is a combo deck, not a control deck.

[mistercakes]

Given Urza's Saga and the related banning that the block brought for magic (academy, windfall, spiral, jar etc.) , it's only appropriate that urza is also banned.

[Mr. Safety]

Given Urza's Saga and the related banning that the block brought for magic (academy, windfall, spiral, jar etc.) , it's only appropriate that urza is also banned.

It would certainly match the flavor, lol.

Strangely enough, I don't think Urza on his own would cause this. It's Urza + Thopter/Sword + Emry. They are continually printing cards into the modern format that enable Thopter/Sword to become better. It's rather ironic that they banned Sword of the Meek preemptively, then it wasn't any good, then they put effort into making it good. Now it might be in a deck that is potentially too good.

Oh WOTC, why is it always a love/hate relationship with you? At least give us the 'safe word'.

[Dice_Box]

It's not Thopter Sword at all. That combo is losing favour for Paradoxical Outcome. Sometimes used with Jeskai Ascendancy and Emry. Sometimes without the Ascendancy.

Outcome, Urza, a token generator and Nexus Of Fate is quite the mix. Sai or Saheeli. The deck can one hit kill on turn 3 rather easily with all the Moxen. Land, Urza, play PO, replay, get another PO, repeat. Leave something on the table that you can later use Saheeli and clone it as Urza's construct. Swing. That's without Ascendancy. With Ascendancy you make stupid mana as all the tokens untap and you make more mana. Then you use PO to bounce Saheeli, use her ability two or three times and swing in with Construct clones.

That's all before you find Nexus and take another turn. Oh and Blockers got you down? Pity EE can take out any issues you may have and if your running Ascendancy, you can loop Moxen with Emry for any mix of mana you want.

Deck is the new KCI or Eggs. Complex loops that are not intuitive to your average FNM player. That's why I think it's going to get banned.

[Mr. Safety]

It's not Thopter Sword at all. That combo is losing favour for Paradoxical Outcome. Sometimes used with Jeskai Ascendancy and Emry. Sometimes without the Ascendancy.

Outcome, Urza, a token generator and Nexus Of Fate is quite the mix. Sai or Saheeli. The deck can one hit kill on turn 3 rather easily with all the Moxen. Land, Urza, play PO, replay, get another PO, repeat. Leave something on the table that you can later use Saheeli and clone it as Urza's construct. Swing. That's without Ascendancy. With Ascendancy you make stupid mana as all the tokens untap and you make more mana. Then you use PO to bounce Saheeli, use her ability two or three times and swing in with Construct clones.

That's all before you find Nexus and take another turn. Oh and Blockers got you down? Pity EE can take out any issues you may have and if your running Ascendancy, you can loop Moxen with Emry for any mix of mana you want.

Deck is the new KCI or Eggs. Complex loops that are not intuitive to your average FNM player. That's why I think it's going to get banned.

Thanks for the clarification; I just assumed it was going infinite with Thopters.

[Zombie]

It's not Thopter Sword at all. That combo is losing favour for Paradoxical Outcome. Sometimes used with Jeskai Ascendancy and Emry. Sometimes without the Ascendancy.

Outcome, Urza, a token generator and Nexus Of Fate is quite the mix. Sai or Saheeli. The deck can one hit kill on turn 3 rather easily with all the Moxen. Land, Urza, play PO, replay, get another PO, repeat. Leave something on the table that you can later use Saheeli and clone it as Urza's construct. Swing. That's without Ascendancy. With Ascendancy you make stupid mana as all the tokens untap and you make more mana. Then you use PO to bounce Saheeli, use her ability two or three times and swing in with Construct clones.

That's all before you find Nexus and take another turn. Oh and Blockers got you down? Pity EE can take out any issues you may have and if your running Ascendancy, you can loop Moxen with Emry for any mix of mana you want.

Deck is the new KCI or Eggs. Complex loops that are not intuitive to your average FNM player. That's why I think it's going to get banned.

Pity, looked like the first modern deck in a while that was at face value interesting.

[FTW]

Deck is the new KCI or Eggs. Complex loops that are not intuitive to your average FNM player. That's why I think it's going to get banned.

I've been watching streams. Luckily even most of the streamers don't understand the deck either and are making terrible plays. It's a major facepalmfest. If that continues in tournaments, the deck may not get banned yet.

[phonics]

I've been watching streams. Luckily even most of the streamers don't understand the deck either and are making terrible plays. It's a major facepalmfest. If that continues in tournaments, the deck may not get banned yet.

All it takes is a Matt Nass to run the tables a couple times with it at some high level tournaments to earn the ire of ban hammer.

[Mr. Safety]

I didn't see an announcement; no changes? It was supposed to be yesterday.

EDIT: Yep, just saw it. No changes. I think this is fine, hoping for a small semblance of stability in the modern format for a little while.

[rufus]

...
Strangely enough, I don't think Urza on his own would cause this.
...

Urza does fit the pattern of modern WotC mistakes since it has a bunch of abilities on a single card, and it fits a traditional mistake pattern since it offsets its own cost in mana production. There might be other stuff involved, but it's credible that Urza is a problem card.

[Mr. Safety]

Urza does fit the pattern of modern WotC mistakes since it has a bunch of abilities on a single card, and it fits a traditional mistake pattern since it offsets its own cost in mana production. There might be other stuff involved, but it's credible that Urza is a problem card.

Sure, I can buy that. I think it's an example of a card that is obviously powerful, but not obviously too powerful. The full extent isn't revealed until the community breaks it in half. Deathrite Shaman took a little while to catch on as well.