Ban on Brainstorm: Yes or No (Post Snapcaster Mage)

[death]

Re: Legacy is doomed. SCG jumping on board the "Ban Brainstorm" wagon. :( (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22526-Legacy-is-doomed.-SCG-jumping-on-board-the-quot-Ban-Brainstorm-quot-wagon.-(&p=600000&viewfull=1#post600000)

As requested.

Plain and simple. No politicking.

[Tao]

Imo it is clear that Brainstorm has to get the Axe. Before Snapcaster I was of the opinion that it deserved a ban, but it wasn't too bad. But now it has gotten ridiculous.

[makochman]

I voted no, but I will not be very upset if it is banned, and I believe a ban is not unlikely. In any case I would prefer it if we could wait for a couple more months to see how the format evolves.

[death]

Magic Arcana: The Saga of Snapcaster Mage (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/826&dcmp=ilc-mtgrss)


Actually, though, that wasn't Tiago's original submission. This was his first request:

Denying Channel
Land
Tap: Add :1: to your mana pool.
2 :u::u:, Discard Denying Channel: Counter target spell.


R&D tried this card out, but they decided that a land that could also be an uncounterable counterspell was too strong to print. So they asked Tiago for another version.
And that turned into Snapcaster Mage!

-YAY!!!! Nowhere between the last two lines do I see "and R&D tried this card out too"

[lyracian]

Brainstorm is fun. Just ban snapcaster. :wink:

[caiomarcos]

Brainstorm is fun. Just ban snapcaster. :wink:

Agreed. Brainstorm has been around forever and although being always powerful it never crossed that ban line. The problem today is everything else that blue got in te last few blocks.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Of the new blue beaters, I think Delver is far the greater reason to ban Brainstorm, but it does need to get axed.

[ThoSha]

Ban Snapcaster AND Delver..
Ridiculous shit is ridiculous.

Banning Brainstorm itself would really fuck the format up.

[kiblast]

In my opinion Brainstorm doesn't need to be banned. BS is played by multiple blue based/blue splashed decks, from UW control to Blue Zoo to Ant. All those decks would have to part from this beautiful and powerful tool; could you imagine Legacy without Brainstorm? If I had to ban something, I'd really ban Snapcaster Mage. He's just stupid good. Brainstorm is very good-probably the best card available in legacy, but Snapcaster just happens to be a 3cc late game additional copy of Brainstorm, with a body. Non blue decks can handle 4 Brainstorm , but they just can't handle the threat density that 4 Brainstorm+ 4 Swords to Plowshares and 4 Snapcaster Mage give to control decks. Moreover, the combination of 4 Snapcaster+some SB Surgical Extraction gives to control decks an incredible edge post sb versus non-Snapcaster decks. He's just too good.Not to mention the obvious additional copies of Spell Snare. I imagine he should belong to the stupid-Vintage Brokeness (in fact Vintage Snapcontrol decks are starting top8ing events everywhere), not to legacy.He's the card (now that Misstep is gone) that fundamentally broken the equilibrium in favor of Blue decks. He is, not Brainstorm.

[Gui]

If they ban brainstorm, blue will still be the best color and the most played, because it's the only color with solutions to everything AND library manipulation all in the same pack.

[DragoFireheart]

Of the new blue beaters, I think Delver is far the greater reason to ban Brainstorm, but it does need to get axed.

-Why?


If they ban brainstorm, blue will still be the best color and the most played, because it's the only color with solutions to everything AND library manipulation all in the same pack.

NOPE BLUE WILL NOT BE PLAYED AFTER BRAINSTORM IS BANNED IT WILL NOW BE BALANCED oh wait people still play combo decks guess I'll still play blue because I don't want to die in 2 turns. Guess I'll just change out brainstorm for ponder.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

-Why?



NOPE BLUE WILL NOT BE PLAYED AFTER BRAINSTORM IS BANNED IT WILL NOW BE BALANCED oh wait people still play combo decks guess I'll still play blue because I don't want to die in 2 turns. Guess I'll just change out brainstorm for ponder.

Most people play blue because nothing is more powerful in a game of randomness than having the ability to decrease said randomness. Blue has access to the best tools for increasing consistency and as such blue is the best color.

Relatively few people play blue solely because it has a good combo game, methinks.

[KevinTrudeau]

Hell fucking no.

[cheerios]

NO

[DragoFireheart]

Relatively few people play blue solely because it has a good combo game, methinks.

Funny, I seem to remember a FLOOD of blue based control decks after the FLOOD of combo decks when MMS was banned.

[mojoiskewl]

blue beaters

now there is the problem, too much color identity bleed

[DragoFireheart]

now there is the problem, too much color identity bleed

Yeah, I'm not sure what moron from WotC decided that a 3/2 flier for U was a good idea.

[Leftconsin]

Yeah, I'm not sure what moron from WotC decided that a 3/2 flier for U was a good idea.

This is the big problem we face right now. Brainstorm has always been overpowered, but it camps out at that limit of too good. Getting a super aggressive blue creature that actually makes running Brainstorm a lot better is insane. Either something with the banlist happens, or we start an era where not running blue is strictly a tactical error.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

-Why?

It's more powerful.


NOPE BLUE WILL NOT BE PLAYED AFTER BRAINSTORM IS BANNED IT WILL NOW BE BALANCED oh wait people still play combo decks guess I'll still play blue because I don't want to die in 2 turns. Guess I'll just change out brainstorm for ponder.

I mean if you think that Brainstorm and Ponder are comparable, I really don't know what to tell you.

[DragoFireheart]

It's more powerful.

-So is Tarmogoyf. And Force of Will. And Stoneforge Mystic. And Entomb. And every other card worth playing. They're all "more powerful" than jank like Grizzly Bears.

Powerful card != ban worthy. Give a better argument.




I mean if you think that Brainstorm and Ponder are comparable, I really don't know what to tell you.

-Your reading comprehension is pretty awful IBA.

I guess Snappy and Delver have nothing to do with blues recent success. Oh no, couldn't be those two new cards...

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7118

Nope, must be brainstorm...

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7118&iddeck=51698

Yup, must be brainstorm!

[Humphrey]

I say unban MM, then you can ban BS

[DragoFireheart]

I say unban MM, then you can ban BS


Snapcaster Mage

Mental Misstep

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

-So is Tarmogoyf. And Force of Will. And Stoneforge Mystic. And Entomb. And every other card worth playing. They're all "more powerful" than jank like Grizzly Bears.

Powerful card != ban worthy. Give a better argument.

I think somewhere you became confused.

You asked why Delver was more a reason to ban Brainstorm than Snapcaster, as I said. There's the reason. Delver is more powerful than Snapcaster.

I'm not sure how you got grizzly bears into it but I doubt you are, either.


-Your reading comprehension is pretty awful IBA.

lol


I guess Snappy and Delver have nothing to do with blues recent success. Oh no, couldn't be those two new cards...

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7118

Nope, must be brainstorm...

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7118&iddeck=51698

Yup, must be brainstorm!

Speaking of reading comprehension.

I actually said explicitly that Delver and Snapcaster have pushed the power level of Brainstorm, in, for instance, the preceding post.

But it's a bit silly to suggest banning Delver or Snapcaster over Brainstorm because of that.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Snapcaster Mage

Mystical Tutor

[DragoFireheart]

I think somewhere you became confused.

You asked why Delver was more a reason to ban Brainstorm than Snapcaster, as I said. There's the reason. Delver is more powerful than Snapcaster.

I'm not sure how you got grizzly bears into it but I doubt you are, either.

- Let me rephrase my question since I confused you:

Why should Brainstorm be banned?




lol

Expected.




Speaking of reading comprehension.

I actually said explicitly that Delver and Snapcaster have pushed the power level of Brainstorm, in, for instance, the preceding post.


-Neither have pushed the power level of brainstorm. Both are simply good cards and have pushed blue decks.



But it's a bit silly to suggest banning Delver or Snapcaster over Brainstorm because of that.

Yup, it's silly to ban the cards that are causing problems! Lets instead ban something else!

A 3/2 U flier is fair apparently. Doesn't break power creep or anything.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

Delver of Secrets is more powerful than he otherwise would be BECAUSE of Brainstorm. Without Brainstorm, Delver would not come online as consistently as he does.
Snapcaster Mage is more powerful than he otherwise would be BECAUSE of Brainstorm. There are few things that make a deck more consistent than having access to eight Brainstorms.

Take away Brainstorm and both cards become significantly less powerful, although still strong.

[Pulp_Fiction]

I'm all for the banning of it. I would like to see a variety of decks rather than just UW Stoneforge BS and Tempo.

Although I have to agree that Snapcaster is the problem. I'm really pissed seeing the land not printed though ... that would be way less busted than the Mage.

[DragoFireheart]

I don't even know why I bother trying to argue. You don't want to be convinced: you've already made up your mind.

Just ban Brainstorm and go the route Modern is going. Just stop pretending your arguments make any sense.

[Leftconsin]

I'm all for the banning of it. I would like to see a variety of decks rather than just UW Stoneforge BS and Tempo.

Although I have to agree that Snapcaster is the problem. I'm really pissed seeing the land not printed though ... that would be way less busted than the Mage.

This. The original card wouldn't have seen Legacy play.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Nothing needs to get banned. Snapcaster and Delver are just blue's share of the new power-creeped creatures. They will join the ranks of Wild Nacatl, KotR, Goyf, SFM, etc.

It doesn't make sense to ban a card because it is good. Every card played in Legacy is good. Banned cards are the ones that destroy the format and restrict the playable decks to an extremely small pool. Right now we have a ton of decks that place well in tournaments and many strategies and colors are viable. We don't need each color to show up in exactly the same amounts. Green is as prevalent as blue now anyway.

[RaNDoMxGeSTuReS]

Nothing needs to get banned. Snapcaster and Delver are just blue's share of the new power-creeped creatures. They will join the ranks of Wild Nacatl, KotR, Goyf, SFM, etc.

It doesn't make sense to ban a card because it is good. Every card played in Legacy is good. Banned cards are the ones that destroy the format and restrict the playable decks to an extremely small pool. Right now we have a ton of decks that place well in tournaments and many strategies and colors are viable. We don't need each color to show up in exactly the same amounts. Green is as prevalent as blue now anyway.

All the decks that play Nacatl, KotR, Goyf and SFM lose to a turn 1 Delver.

[Scordata]

Ever since Survival got the ax (and it was well deserved,) it seems like a good third of the posts I see on this forum are not dedicated towards moving the format forward, but rather, steering it backwards.

Every few months threads keep popping up about Ban this! and Ban that!

Not very constructive for what is supposed to be the premiere legacy forum.

There's a whole slew of strategies that laugh at delver/snapcaster. Some of them start with Thoughtseize, some of them Knight of the Reliquary, and others with Ichorid.

Do you guys know that if they ban Brainstorm, decks like Burn and Belcher will be tier 1? Imagine HAVING to mulligan to a force of will or such, because blue can't reliably do what it's supposed to do?

Yes, Brainstorm is the best card in legacy. Does that mean it should be banned? Surely there is a next best card - maybe it's Swords to Plowshares. Should we ban that, as well? After all, stp invalidates creature strategies.

I promise you, if brainstorm is banned, combo will take over the metagame - your petdecks wont stand a chance.

[Vacrix]

Can everyone calm down? There is natural power creep and there is 'corrective' power creep. You don't necessarily need to ban Brainstorm just because aggro control is still doing well. Just stop trying obviously ineffective corrective power creep attempts like Mental Misstep. Thats was just stupid on WotC's part. It just fucks up the metagame and then a new one emerges... like this one which is further fucked up because it had to correct from MM, and then Delver/Snapcaster changed the metagame once again. Now does that mean we have to immediately turn to corrective measures? Hell no. Everyone is freaking out because Brainstorm is a classic Staple. Thats all. I'd suggest a discussion about power creep ensue instead and the implications it has on classic staples.

Imagine cards like the following as effective (debatable obviously) corrective power creep measures, arbitrary names:

Demon (B)(B)
Creature
Whenever you draw a card, lose 2 life.
Whenever your opponent draws a card you may scry 1.
4/3


Shaman 1(W)(W)
Creature
At the beginning of your upkeep, scry X where X is the number of plains you control.
2/2

Scry mechanics could balance out the colors that don't really have the consistency properties of cantrips like Brainstorm. These are just random examples but scry is a good one, and also cards that don't work well with cantrips, like the first card, could be employed to improve the archetypes that don't run cantrips... or just create new archetypes.

I'm not saying either of these cards are the godsend solution to the 'problem' of Brainstorm in an emerging era of Snapcaster/Delver; however, a discussion of effective, corrective powercreep measures ought to ensue in a thread like this where one of the format's defining staples is getting attacked for being too powerful in a new age of powercreep.

[CorpT]

Nothing needs to get banned. Snapcaster and Delver are just blue's share of the new power-creeped creatures. They will join the ranks of Wild Nacatl, KotR, Goyf, SFM, etc.

It doesn't make sense to ban a card because it is good. Every card played in Legacy is good. Banned cards are the ones that destroy the format and restrict the playable decks to an extremely small pool. Right now we have a ton of decks that place well in tournaments and many strategies and colors are viable. We don't need each color to show up in exactly the same amounts. Green is as prevalent as blue now anyway.

Since Innistrad:

SCG decks with 10% of a color:
Blue: 82
Green: 56
White: 47
Black: 40
Red: 30

Total: 96

Blue is in 85% of the winning decks. Red is in 31%. But I'm sure that's ok with you.

[menace13]

Since Innistrad:

SCG decks with 10% of a color:
Blue: 82
Green: 56
White: 47
Black: 40
Red: 30

Total: 96

Blue is in 85% of the winning decks. Red is in 31%. But I'm sure that's ok with you.

When if at any time has it been closer in Legacy?

[CorpT]

When if at any time has it been closer in Legacy?

So because it's always been that way, it's ok? I've done previous runs of the data and it has been getting worse over the years. It has been trending towards blue dominance for awhile. Which means it's never been this bad, but it's always been pretty bad.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Brainstorm doesn't need to be banned.

The only problem with the format is that non-blue decks don't have good enough tools vs. fast combo decks.
When combo shows up the best option is to play blue. Non blue decks become much less viable.
When combo doesn't show up many non-blue decks become viable but blue is still good.
When blue doesn't show up combo is good and once again it's a bad idea to be packing non-blue non-combo decks.

The main problem is blue is always good, while combo that beats aggro and aggro that beats dedicated blue are often bad choices. Blue is always a safe bet.

The solution isn't to ban anything, but to give aggro slightly better options vs combo (the ones that exist now are pretty bad). A fixed Misstep would do that, there are plenty of ways of doing this, most notably prevent it from hitting permanents and maybe allow it to only be played for alt casting cost if user controls no islands. Combo already has plenty of options vs. blue, the matchup is not unwinnable and if there were more non-blue decks running around blue would have to use more resources to account for these decks which would make players balance more between hating on spells and worrying about Knights and Nacatls. Combo already has the tools to play around fixed Misstep when it's not backed up by other significant disruption. With aggro becoming more viable the non-blue decks would have to use more resources to account for their matchup vs. other aggro and midrange decks and could devote less spaces to something like a fixed misstep to hate on combo.

Preferably the format would be a lot more tuned to how well a player could balance the need to hate on all different types of decks and blue would not be the default choice just because you're scared that if you don't run it you'll scoop to combo.

[Intet's Attendant]

Brainstorm doesn't need to be banned.

The only problem with the format is that non-blue decks don't have good enough tools vs. fast combo decks.
When combo shows up the best option is to play blue. Non blue decks become much less viable.
When combo doesn't show up many non-blue decks become viable but blue is still good.
When blue doesn't show up combo is good and once again it's a bad idea to be packing non-blue non-combo decks.

The main problem is blue is always good, while combo that beats aggro and aggro that beats dedicated blue are often bad choices. Blue is always a safe bet.

The solution isn't to ban anything, but to give aggro slightly better options vs combo (the ones that exist now are pretty bad). A fixed Misstep would do that, there are plenty of ways of doing this, most notably prevent it from hitting permanents and maybe allow it to only be played for alt casting cost if user controls no islands. Combo already has plenty of options vs. blue, the matchup is not unwinnable and if there were more non-blue decks running around blue would have to use more resources to account for these decks which would make players balance more between hating on spells and worrying about Knights and Nacatls. Combo already has the tools to play around fixed Misstep when it's not backed up by other significant disruption. With aggro becoming more viable the non-blue decks would have to use more resources to account for their matchup vs. other aggro and midrange decks and could devote less spaces to something like a fixed misstep to hate on combo.

Preferably the format would be a lot more tuned to how well a player could balance the need to hate on all different types of decks and blue would not be the default choice just because you're scared that if you don't run it you'll scoop to combo.

Essentially this. Blue is the most popular color because it is the most balanced color, in that is offers both excellent defensive cards and decent offensive cards (Delver, Snapcaster).

Red and green are almost strictly offensive colors, and thus fold to any kind of combo decks.

But I do think that Snapcaster is actually worse for the game than Brainstorm. It is a Grizzly Bears, with flash, with an excellent etb ability.

I think Stoneforge, Snapcaster, Goyf, and Confidant have all ruined the legacy game. Making creatures as powerful as these was just not a good idea. It is also ridiculous, almost hypocritical, to give blue excellent creatures while at the same time not giving the other colors excellent defensive cards. Blue is slowly becoming more and more (at least in eternal formats) the color that does it all.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Essentially this. Blue is the most popular color because it is the most balanced color, in that is offers both excellent defensive cards and decent offensive cards (Delver, Snapcaster).

Red and green are almost strictly offensive colors, and thus fold to any kind of combo decks.

But I do think that Snapcaster is actually worse for the game than Brainstorm. It is a Grizzly Bears, with flash, with an excellent etb ability.

I think Stoneforge, Snapcaster, Goyf, and Confidant have all ruined the legacy game. Making creatures as powerful as these was just not a good idea. It is also ridiculous, almost hypocritical, to give blue excellent creatures while at the same time not giving the other colors excellent defensive cards. Blue is slowly becoming more and more (at least in eternal formats) the color that does it all.

Yeah they do need to chill the fuck out with blue for a while and make more non-blue weapons for eternal. I actually like all the cards you listed, hate to admit it, but there it is. I think Snapper is slightly overrated right now. He's really good, don't get me wrong, but I don't think he's the end all creature people make him out to be. I think in time he'll fall off a little like Goyf has over time.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Since Innistrad:

SCG decks with 10% of a color:
Blue: 82
Green: 56
White: 47
Black: 40
Red: 30

Total: 96

Blue is in 85% of the winning decks. Red is in 31%. But I'm sure that's ok with you.

You skewed that data dramatically to favor you.

Red may be more than 10% of only 30 decks but I expect it is in dramatically more decks in lower percents.

Why don't you provide more information if you have it so available? If your data is so strong and convincing you shouldn't need to manipulate it and be vague.

Also, I'm absolutely ok with blue being in 85% of those decks (whichever decks they are). It's ridiculous to decide that each color must be exactly equally represented. The format shifts and it isn't the end of the world. Bans aren't needed.

[dontbiteitholmes]

You skewed that data dramatically to favor you.

Red may be more than 10% of only 30 decks but I expect it is in dramatically more decks in lower percents.

Why don't you provide more information if you have it so available? If your data is so strong and convincing you shouldn't need to manipulate it and be vague.

You could be right, but in his defense the information is publicly available so you could do it yourself if you really cared that much.

[CorpT]

You skewed that data dramatically to favor you.

Red may be more than 10% of only 30 decks but I expect it is in dramatically more decks in lower percents.

Why don't you provide more information if you have it so available? If your data is so strong and convincing you shouldn't need to manipulate it and be vague.

Also, I'm absolutely ok with blue being in 85% of those decks (whichever decks they are). It's ridiculous to decide that each color must be exactly equally represented. The format shifts and it isn't the end of the world. Bans aren't needed.

Go ahead and look at the data yourself. And I actually run it for 1% for non-Black colors. Black gets set at 10% just because of Dismember. There is no manipulation or vagueness. You stated that Green was as represented as Blue. I convincingly proved you wrong and you only respond that I manipulate the data without providing any of your own.

These are the real numbers. But feel free to go check yourself.

The point is that the format is only shifting towards more blue domination. How long before 90%? 95%? Each color does not need to be equally represented. But it is crazy to think that one color being 85% and another being 30% is acceptable. That's no where close to balance.

[Pippin]

Big NO.

Also, please keep the fighting to that other thread. Voting and a simple post are enough here.

[lordofthepit]

I see the merits for banning Brainstorm, but I vote for no because I consider it a "pillar of Legacy". It has nostalgia in its favor, and I do think increasing consistency (to some extent) is reasonable to have in the format.

However, I would not quit the format if Brainstorm were banned. I don't think it would affect me a whole lot; I would simply put down my current deck of choice and pick the next best deck available (probably Maverick or Zoo) at my local events. (Incidentally, it is curious how a lot of the posters who express distaste for "whiners who refuse to adapt" are exactly those who whine the most and are least flexible in their deck choices.)

Unfortunately, I do think a decent number of Legacy players will quit the format or even Magic entirely if Brainstorm were banned. Partly for the aforementioned reasons, and partly out of concern for them (and indirectly, the health of the community), I would prefer for Brainstorm to remain unbanned.

[UnderwaterGuy]

You could be right, but in his defense the information is publicly available so you could do it yourself if you really cared that much.

I don't know exactly what decks he is looking at.

[CorpT]

I don't know exactly what decks he is looking at.

So I'm wrong, but you can't be bothered to read my whole post where it says SCG decks since Innistrad?

Isn't there a political forum you should be trolling now?

[UnderwaterGuy]

Go ahead and look at the data yourself. And I actually run it for 1% for non-Black colors. Black gets set at 10% just because of Dismember. There is no manipulation or vagueness. You stated that Green was as represented as Blue. I convincingly proved you wrong and you only respond that I manipulate the data without providing any of your own.

These are the real numbers. But feel free to go check yourself.

The point is that the format is only shifting towards more blue domination. How long before 90%? 95%? Each color does not need to be equally represented. But it is crazy to think that one color being 85% and another being 30% is acceptable. That's no where close to balance.

You did not prove me wrong.

Here are the colors represented in the top 16 of Sunday's SCG tournament. Not counting Dismember as a black card and not counting Figure of Destiny as white, so Merfolk counts as a mono blue deck and Burn is mono red. If I counted Dismember as black then there would be 6 black decks (two Merfolk and one Zoo deck ran it) and if FoD was white there would be 7 white.

Green 11
Blue 10
Red 7
White 6
Black 3

In that tournament green was more represented than blue in the top 16. I have not gone through and counted for other tournaments.

edit: you had to give me a minute dude :P

and you said SCG but not which decks. (top 8/top 16/top ?)

[CorpT]

You did not prove me wrong.

Here are the colors represented in the top 16 of Sunday's SCG tournament. Not counting Dismember as a black card and not counting Figure of Destiny as white, so Merfolk counts as a mono blue deck and Burn is mono red. If I counted Dismember as black then there would be 6 black decks (two Merfolk and one Zoo deck ran it) and if FoD was white there would be 7 white.

Awesome sample size. 96 isn't enough, and you want to trim it down to 16 to "prove" your point?

[UnderwaterGuy]

My point is only that Brainstorm does not need banned. Blue is not the only good color and many decks are competitive.

[KobeBryan]

My point is only that Brainstorm does not need banned. Blue is not the only good color and many decks are competitive.

Just give up man. Whether brainstorm deserves a ban or not, blue is the most dominant and most represented color right now. Its not even worth arguing otherwise.

[oRen]

I think that Snapcaster is more a problem than Delver. People are claiming that Brainstorm is too good since like forever but now that you can play 8 it actually got too bonkers.

[f|i[p]]

Brainstorm has always been good...and I really hate the card actually... but I've learned to live with it for years...

but if people were to ask if its ban worthy.. YES..

How can a blue deck run 18 lands.. with 4 wasteland and still be consistent... if blue were the only color that can offer consistency to a deck...and all those other colors have to run more lands just to generate consistency.. it just shows that blue decks doesn't have as much limitation as to deck building....

As for blue being dominating in legacy... it always has been dominating.. just not as much as of lately... Ive always seen around 8 decks in the Dtb section of the source... and 4-6 of them are usually blue based... Goblins used to hang out there for quite some time.. as well as zoo, being one of the only real consistent non blue deck that stayed in the Decks to beat section... Loam was always in and out.. just like Rock..they stay there for a few months or weeks then out they go...

However brainstorm is really powerful, and has always been powerful.. As for players who would quit..because of a brainstorm ban... please do...

Nobody really took survival seriously before vengvine....Survival was tier 2... tier 1.5 at best...but vengvine changed the whole picture for survival...

Cards come and go... new cards printed will always push out old cards to a new level of power...we'll just have to accept change... and move forward...

[Hof]

It doesn't make sense to ban a card because it is good. Every card played in Legacy is good. Banned cards are the ones that destroy the format and restrict the playable decks to an extremely small pool. Right now we have a ton of decks that place well in tournaments and many strategies and colors are viable. We don't need each color to show up in exactly the same amounts. Green is as prevalent as blue now anyway.
+1

[TRS-Jo]

Obvious answer: no!

[(nameless one)]

I hope Brainstorm gets banned.

Half of you will quit Legacy and most likely sell your collection, which will be picked up by EDH players. Sounds good to me.

[Mr. Safety]

I know I'm in the minority of, well, one whole person in the universe, but I still think that restricting cards shouldn't be limited to vintage. Having restricted cards in legacy seems like a decent compromise, especially given the fiercely loyal legacy community that could potentially be 'banned out of the format' so to speak.

I think that restricting cards (like potentially Brainstorm, possibly unbanning and instead restricting other cards like Survival of the Fittest, Mystical Tutor, etc.) is a creative way to get around the eventual critical mass of over-powered cards of legacy. If you ban cards, you change Legacy's identity. If you restrict cards, you give Legacy a new haircut (not that I'm an expert on haircuts, see avatar for further information.)

[Sims]

I hope Brainstorm gets banned.

Half of you will quit Legacy and most likely sell your collection, which will be picked up by EDH players. Sounds good to me.

I like the way you think.

[DragoFireheart]

Awesome sample size. 96 isn't enough, and you want to trim it down to 16 to "prove" your point?

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?



I hope Brainstorm gets banned.

Half of you will quit Legacy and most likely sell your collection, which will be picked up by EDH players. Sounds good to me.

EDH is arguably better than Legacy anyways. I get to play dragons like Scion of the Ur-Dragon and awesome cards like Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Tooth and Nail, and Strip Mine? I can reanimate armies of monsters that do cool shit? The banned list is amazingly short? FUCK YEAH!

I guess I don't care too much if Legacy gets killed off because EDH is a superior eternal format anyways.

[OurSerratedDust]

Of the last three SCG top 16's, guess how many blue decks made the cut?

40 out of 48 decks were blue decks. This means that only 8 decks were non-blue....

Kinda ridiculous, right? I hate that wizards blatantly prints 3 amazing blue cards in the last two sets alone.

EDIT: Sorry if this info has been posted earlier in the thread.

[Solar Ice]

Should Brainstorm get banned? An absolute, complete and resounding: HELL NO.

Really guys do you want this awesome format to turn into the stagnant, boring as hell, so-called eternal format that is Modern? Because that is exactly what a ban on Brainstorm will do. The card is that important to Legacy.Along with Force of Will, it is imo, the cards that define this format and should not be touched under any circumstances. I'm sure some of you wouldn't mind a Modern MKII, but I think that for the vast majority of Legacy players that would be unacceptable.

Just consider for a moment the monstrous amount of decks and archetypes a ban on Brainstorm will cripple...Is that really the way to improve this format?

Imo, nothing needs to be banned. Neither BS, nor Delver, not even Snappy for that matter. Overall, I think its likely that Brainstorm is going nowhere (thankfully) but given the way they butchered Modern with the Ban list a couple of months ago, nothing would surprise me. One plus is they have been very, very smart with the Legacy and Vintage B/R lists, especially with Misstep.

Leave Brainstorm well alone. Or go play Modern.
My 0.02 cents.

[Solaran_X]

Brainstorm right now is in the same position Survival of the Fittest was in when it got banned.

Like Survival, Brainstorm itself isn't the issue. In a vacuum, both cards are fair and fine. However, Magic is not a vacuum. While the cards themselves are fair and fine, it's what they have the potential of doing that is why they need dealt with.

Before Vengevine, no one was calling for Survival to be banned despite a solid half dozen decks using the Survival engine. But after Vengevine, the cries for the banning of Survival drowned out everything else (never mind that Survival wasn't the issue, Vengevine was).

Now we have Brainstorm in the same position. Before Snapcaster Mage, you had four Brainstorms to use to combat discard effects and smooth out bad draws by Brainstorming away bad cards and cracking a fetch to shuffle them away. Now we have Snapcaster Mage giving us a potential EIGHT Brainstorms in one deck. Have a bad hand, but already used Brainstorm? No problem...opponent's EOT, Flash in Snapcaster Mage and then Flashback Brainstorm. Problem solved. Win condition in hand and opponent casts Thoughtseize? 1UU Brainstorm on a stick coming up.

Honestly, I find it funny that the same people who cried for Survival to be banned are fighting the threat of a banned Brainstorm in Legacy tooth and nail while both cards are in the same prebanning position right now. I find the hypocrisy hilarious.

[Solar Ice]

Honestly, I find it funny that the same people who cried for Survival to be banned are fighting the threat of a banned Brainstorm in Legacy tooth and nail while both cards are in the same prebanning position right now. I find the hypocrisy hilarious.

Don't know about the others, but I was one of those who was not in favour of a Survival ban at all.

[SpikeyMikey]

Solaran: The thing is, while you're masturbating with Brainstorming for the 8th time, your opponent is busy casting things that win. There's a limit to how much manipulation you can have before your threat density drops too low to function. Snapcaster is flavor of the month. 3 months from now, it'll be as heavily played as Hive Mind is. Remember when that was the unstoppable juggernaut?

I'm not sure when it happened, but Legacy became the format of Chicken Littles at some point.

[Sims]

Honestly, I find it funny that the same people who cried for Survival to be banned are fighting the threat of a banned Brainstorm in Legacy tooth and nail while both cards are in the same prebanning position right now. I find the hypocrisy hilarious.

I find it to be par for the course, honestly.

A dangerous precident has been set, as it seems more than anything that "bitch til it's banned" is a legitimate strategy so that people don't have to adapt and can just sheeple the SCG Crew. Worked for Survival (instead of vine), Worked for Mental Misstep.... But all of a sudden they start crying on the Circuit over a card that is near and dear (more so than Survival) to people hearts.... How can you ban a common? A Common that's been unbanned since Ice Age and never has been seen as a threat desptie being head and shoulders above anything else with a comparable ability, arguably including Ancestral itself with or without a fetchland. A common that's actually Restricted in Vintage at that.

tl;dr: Card probably should have been banned back when it was restricted in vintage, but honestly at this point I couldn't care less.

Edit:

I'm not sure when it happened, but Legacy became the format of Chicken Littles at some point.

September 2004, when everyone saw they left Survival, LED, and Lackey unbanned.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Why is there no "ban Snapcaster Mage" choice in this poll?

[TheyCallMeTim]

All these recent bans came down too quickly. Was Survival dominant? Yes. Misstep found in every deck? Yes. But give the format a chance to adapt. This big legacy ship has frequently corrected itself when given time.

[Solaran_X]

All these recent bans came down too quickly. Was Survival dominant? Yes. Misstep found in every deck? Yes. But give the format a chance to adapt. This big legacy ship has frequently corrected itself when given time.
I wouldn't even have called Survival "dominant." At the height of it's "dominance," Survival was accounting for only a bit more than 18% of all Top 8 finishes reported on TC Decks during it's 5 month run from GP: Columbus until being banned in December. It's overall Top 8 shows as reported on TC Decks was only around 14%.

[CorpT]

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove, but IMO, it is stupid to play anything but blue now. That's the issue I, and others, have with blue. I didn't like Standard when it was play Caw Blade or you're stupid. And I'm frustrated with Legacy when it is play Blue or you're stupid. I'm not arguing for color parity. I'm not arguing for blue to be nerfed into oblivion. I'm arguing for more balance than 85%/30% and/or good, non-blue cards.

[DragoFireheart]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove, but IMO, it is stupid to play anything but blue now. That's the issue I, and others, have with blue. I didn't like Standard when it was play Caw Blade or you're stupid. And I'm frustrated with Legacy when it is play Blue or you're stupid. I'm not arguing for color parity. I'm not arguing for blue to be nerfed into oblivion. I'm arguing for more balance than 85%/30% and/or good, non-blue cards.

That was some amazing side-stepping you did there. Lets try again:

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?

[CorpT]

That was some amazing side-stepping you did there. Lets try again:

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?

You shouldn't. You should play blue. I have no idea where you're going with this, but I'm not side-stepping anything. Play blue.

[Sims]

That was some amazing side-stepping you did there. Lets try again:

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?

And you're badgering on him for a point that I didn't even see him make.

He's saying blue is too strong, there's no poit not playing blue. Which is basically what you're asking, why play a deck that doesn't run blue.

It's like you're trying to interrogate someone who is agreeing with you.

[TheyCallMeTim]

I wouldn't even have called Survival "dominant." At the height of it's "dominance," Survival was accounting for only a bit more than 18% of all Top 8 finishes reported on TC Decks during it's 5 month run from GP: Columbus until being banned in December. It's overall Top 8 shows as reported on TC Decks was only around 14%.

Once Vengevine found it's way in, it was over 75% of the top 8's I attended in the North East. That's all I meant when I said "dominant". Nonetheless, this only furthers my point that the format could've adapted and remained healthy in an environment in which Survival and Vengevines were combining for a hasty 16/16. If Survival, Misstep, Snapcaster (Delver, etc.) and Mystical Tutor all existed simultaneously, we would be looking at something much different yes, but perhaps something which would "seek its own level".

Btw, I'd like to add that the current format is pretty healthy. When was the last time we had 7+ Decks to Beat?

[DragoFireheart]

You shouldn't. You should play blue. I have no idea where you're going with this, but I'm not side-stepping anything. Play blue.

-Why should I play blue? Because non-blue aggro is bad? Because combo can kill you without counters on turn 1,2, or 3? Because you believe blue is the best color?

[ddt15]

Personally I think Brianstorm was ok-ish, albeit overpowered, as we had all accepted that blue was the color with the best spells. Problem is that blue now also has some of the best creatures.

The demise of red is largely because Goblins is seeing much less play. As a Goblins player I think this is more due to Stoneforge Mystic, as it is pretty hard for Gobs to combat both Goyf/Knight and Stoneforge at the same time.

Red could use some love though. Reds best creature is still Goblin Lackey, it has been since Scourge. Unlike the old days there are a million and one answers to it now. Mostly due to the ever increasing power of 2 cmc creatures that can win games by themselves. (Ofc they could unban recruiter but noone wants to wait 25 mins while the Gobs player stacks his whole deck, then again, is this different from playing against, say, High Tide?).

[CorpT]

-Why should I play blue? Because non-blue aggro is bad? Because combo can kill you without counters on turn 1,2, or 3? Because you believe blue is the best color?

Because you want to win?

Look, can you just tell me what you want me to say, so I can say it and you can say "ah-ha, gotcha!" That would probably save a lot of back and forth.

[Sims]

-Why should I play blue? Because non-blue aggro is bad? Because combo can kill you without counters on turn 1,2, or 3? Because you believe blue is the best color?

Objection, your honor. Badgering the witness.

You should play blue because it is the strongest color. Why play a non-blue deck when all of the strongest creatures are easily splashable into a blue control or tempo shell?

The issue is that blue has not only gotten new goodies, and not just that blue was already head and shoulders above other colors, but that all of the best cards from the other colors are easily splashable into a blue deck. 1G for Goyf, 1B for Bob.... What point do I have playing without blue when i can play the best creatures printed in Magic along with the best card selection and protection?

edit:

Because you want to win?

Look, can you just tell me what you want me to say, so I can say it and you can say "ah-ha, gotcha!" That would probably save a lot of back and forth.

He wants you to say because Combo is too strong.

[Honorik]

I was playing at GP Amsterdam with my BWR hatebear vial deck finishing 4 - 3 - 1 day 1 and dropped. I played against exact 1 /one/ non Brainstorm deck.

Round 1 - counterbalance
Round 2 - show and tell
Round 3 - bant
Round 4 - bant
Round 5 - ANT
Round 6 - Landstill
Round 7 - Elves !!!!
Round 8 - Team Amerika

It's not even fynny. The number of Brainstorms and Ponsers that was resolved against me was really huge. I manage to beat some of this blue decks somehow, was happy with my deck, but at the end i have the feeling I am doing it wrong. My deck was with 20 lands and 4 vials, playing 2 tops.

So in non blue deck, if i want to stay consistente, I have no other choice but to run top, Sylvan Labrary or Mirri's Guile and no one of them is close to BS or ponder in terms of power, let alone the fact that those thing don't resolve so often vs the blue field. Also I noticed how weak is Thoughtseize, the best discard spell, thanks to BS.

The most powerfull things in this game are positioned in 2 colors - blue and black. While the black have so much cards banned, most of the powerfull blue spells are all legal. All cantrips all legal, all of the counter spells are legal /yeah mana drain is not, tnx God/, some of the best card drawning spells are legal...

Legacy as a format it's very hard to be kept in balance. New sets come, more and more powerfull creatures appear, some of the old card become less and less powerfull or completly broken and metagame warping. Nothing wrong with that - that's why they have the banned list.

But at the end I have the bad feeling that more cards should be banned - like Show and Tell for example. While Swords, Bolts, Hymn, Seize, FoW, Daze and other staples stay the same and doing the same, other cards just reach the ********. Brainstorm is one of those cards in my opinion. Legacy envolves and the best card that search for answers become stronger and stronger. There is not a point to not play it.

So my Vote is YES !

The blue is so powerfull so lets unban Goblin recruiter ? A non - blue deck will come out ! They unbanned Time Spiral this year, a blue spell that create the one more Brainstorm deck, so what's wrong with this little goblin ?

[DragoFireheart]

Because you want to win?

- I do want to win. That doesn't mean blue is suddenly the best deck because I want to win.




Look, can you just tell me what you want me to say, so I can say it and you can say "ah-ha, gotcha!" That would probably save a lot of back and forth.

- You are a hypocrite. Constantly I have seen you on your little crusade against "blue", questioning blue and claiming that X card makes it broken. First, MMS, now BS. Yet the moment anyone questions you, you dance around the issues they have with you.

Now, if you want to actually talk about the issue and stop acting like a politician, answer the questions honestly instead of pretending to be ignorant of what I am talking about. Lets try one more time:

-Why should I play blue? What is it about blue that makes me want to play it right now in the current meta?

[TheDarkshineKnight]

I find it to be par for the course, honestly.

A dangerous precident has been set, as it seems more than anything that "bitch til it's banned" is a legitimate strategy so that people don't have to adapt and can just sheeple the SCG Crew. Worked for Survival (instead of vine), Worked for Mental Misstep.... But all of a sudden they start crying on the Circuit over a card that is near and dear (more so than Survival) to people hearts.... How can you ban a common? A Common that's been unbanned since Ice Age and never has been seen as a threat desptie being head and shoulders above anything else with a comparable ability, arguably including Ancestral itself with or without a fetchland. A common that's actually Restricted in Vintage at that.

tl;dr: Card probably should have been banned back when it was restricted in vintage, but honestly at this point I couldn't care less.

Edit:


September 2004, when everyone saw they left Survival, LED, and Lackey unbanned.

Honestly, though, can you say that banning Vengevine would have been the correct choice over banning Survival? Vengevine wasn't inherently broken, it just happened to push Survival of the Fittest over the top. Had Vengevine been banned, sure, Survival would have been fine again, but Survival's one of those cards that you just know something's going to be printed in the future that will break it again. At that point, you can either ban the new card that makes Survival broken, or realize that banning a bunch of cards simply to keep one archetype around is silly and therefore ban Survival and unban everything that was banned to keep the card in the format.

If a card is shown to be too good of an engine, you need to ban the engine itself. Otherwise, you'll just find yourself banning every single new card that brings the engine over the top.

So, I guess we're at a crossroads at the moment with respect to what need to be banned if we follow this line of reasoning. Is Brainstorm the enabler and Snapcaster Mage the engine? Is Snapcaster Mage the enabler and Brainstorm the engine? Or are they both engines which simply happen to enable each other? If the first, Snapcaster Mage needs to be banned. If the second, Brainstorm needs to be banned. If the third, both Snacpaster AND Brainstorm need to be banned.

[DragoFireheart]

Objection, your honor. Badgering the witness.

You should play blue because it is the strongest color. Why play a non-blue deck when all of the strongest creatures are easily splashable into a blue control or tempo shell?

- I would play a non-blue deck in a meta full of blue decks because it crushes them with ease. Maverick. Zoo.



The issue is that blue has not only gotten new goodies, and not just that blue was already head and shoulders above other colors, but that all of the best cards from the other colors are easily splashable into a blue deck. 1G for Goyf, 1B for Bob.... What point do I have playing without blue when i can play the best creatures printed in Magic along with the best card selection and protection?


- Ah, so the issue isn't that blue is strong but the issue actually is that really good creatures can be easily splashed into blue! We are getting closer to the actual problem at hand...





He wants you to say because Combo is too strong.

-That is one reason but it's only partially correct. There are two more answers.

[GGoober]

I say no:

If brainstorm is banned:
1) Blue becomes neutered, true, but I think blue's dominance is largely consistent because of brainstorm but banning brainstorm still will not neuter blue (just run Ponder/Preordain and change your playouts a little on when to cantrip and not cantrip etc).

2) Blue has received way more good cards that simply banning brainstorm will weaken it. It's true that non-blue decks could be more viable with Brainstorm gone, but that is not true once again because combo will start preying on the format with brainstorm gone. Combo NEEDS brainstorm to truly shine, but control/blue also NEEDS brainstorm to fight combo etc. Brainstorm gone means that faster combo that win with raw power e.g. Belcher/TES (to some extent) would see a big power-increase. These are exactly the combo decks that non-blue aggro decks are weak against i.e. combo with potential of turn 1 kills.

3) Brainstorm gone means that many cards will be at risk on getting banned or at least monitored closely. This is because blue is a defining pillar and glue that holds or dominates (whatever word you choose to use here) the format. Once blue is weakened, a lot of changes will occur (could be good or bad but don't bet your balls that nothing else will get banned). It should be really format re-defining is brainstorm is banned and blue is neutered slightly.

4) Brainstorm banned, just expect Sensei's Top to be played EVERYWHERE. Top is slower than Brainstorm but once resolved and if you can maintain a slower game against your opponent, Top single-handedly beats Brainstorm for its value througout the game. Then Top will get banned, and we lose many more archetypes. Eventually Legacy is just going to end up like a better version of Modern. Sad, really not looking forward to it.

My predictions: Brainstorm gets banned, blue is still good, nothing gets solved except Legacy lost a sea of players who are disappointed that the format simply becomes one where people refuse to adapt and a format where the DCI appeals to the crowd mentality.

On the Survival issue: I was always saddened by Survival's ban. It had 6 years of history backing it up that it was a fair strategy. Vengevine and a lack of answers in the past pushed Vengevival to being one of the strongest and more resilient archetypes in Legacy. Given that today we have Surgical Extractions (including Snapcasters), I really feel that they printed extraction a little too late, or the Survival ban didn't take into consideration that the format can adjust and adapt to itself.

My only MAIN concern with people bitching for a brainstorm ban:

If you feel Brainstorm is THAT powerful and you're not playing Brainstorm, then why do you not play hate cards that really destroy brainstorm.dec? e.g. Chains of Mephistopheles, Extirpate (This is really LOL on Brainstorm BTW). It's not like you fear Brainstorm enough to hate on it v.s. fearing the 4 Survival, 1 ANT (boarding in 8 hate-cards e.g. MBTrap, Chants) or 4 Flash back in those metagames.

If you then argue that I do play a Brainstorm deck because decks with brainstorms are the best decks in Legacy, then why do we still consistently see non-blue decks that destroy said such blue decks? e.g. Goblins/Maverick?

[KobeBryan]

That was some amazing side-stepping you did there. Lets try again:

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?

You're arguments are pretty bad.

This phrase means nothing. Go play blue. Thats what CorpT was saying all along. You either play blue or go home.

Thats why we want a ban on brainstorm to encourage other decks to have a chance at top 8. Right now, the top 8s are all tempo, U/W blade, and blue decks with brainstorms.

[Honorik]

Goblins/Maverick?

Goblins - show me a single top 8 at big torney after Jim Davis at SCG Invitational ?!?! If they unban recruiter with the same style like they did with Time Spiral, we can see some goblin decks.

Again we are stuck to one viable non - blue tier 1 deck.

[Sims]

Why does everyone keep touting answers to brainstorm, like Chains of Mephistopheles?

They're hard to find, they're expensive, and if they become "necessary" to compete against brainstorm deck then they become even more expensive and hard to find ala Moat...

Chains isn't an answer unless you already have them, and for most people trying to get into the format they are simply not an option.

[TheyCallMeTim]

Play Mono Black. Some thing like:

4 Thoughtseize
4 Duress or Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Dismember
4 Dark Confidant

20 Other Spells

20 Swamp

Beats Combo, control and aggro. Pretty soon this thread will become the "Ban Hymn" campaign.

[Roman Candle]

Play Mono Black. Some thing like:

4 Thoughtseize
4 Duress or Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Dismember
4 Dark Confidant

20 Other Spells

20 Swamp

Beats Combo, control and aggro. Pretty soon this thread will become the "Ban Hymn" campaign.

But why wouldn't you play blue in a deck like this? In those 20 empty slots, wouldn't you want to play the best card in the format, Brainstorm? And Force of Will, at that point? Aren't both of those cards simply better than anything in black?

It's not like playing two colors is particularly hard in this format.

Any time I see a deck with twenty basic anything I wonder why it's not playing blue. And if it's twenty Islands, I wonder why it's not playing any two of white, black, red, or green.

[Sims]

But why wouldn't you play blue in a deck like this? In those 20 empty slots, wouldn't you want to play the best card in the format, Brainstorm? And Force of Will, at that point? Aren't both of those cards simply better than anything in black?

It's not like playing two colors is particularly hard in this format.

Any time I see a deck with twenty basic anything I wonder why it's not playing blue. And if it's twenty Islands, I wonder why it's not playing any two of white, black, red, or green.

Is that conducive (I probably spelled that wrong) to a healthy format?

[Roman Candle]

Is that conducive (I probably spelled that wrong) to a healthy format?

Not at all, that's the point.

[TheyCallMeTim]

But why wouldn't you play blue in a deck like this? In those 20 empty slots, wouldn't you want to play the best card in the format, Brainstorm? And Force of Will, at that point? Aren't both of those cards simply better than anything in black?

It's not like playing two colors is particularly hard in this format.

Any time I see a deck with twenty basic anything I wonder why it's not playing blue. And if it's twenty Islands, I wonder why it's not playing any two of white, black, red, or green.


Price of Progress
Wasteland
Back to Basics
Surgical Extraction


I think the fact that Legacy is so mulitcolored is largely why the anti-brainstorm comments exist. Dual lands are first and foremost what define Legacy. Saying that 80% of decks include a land that counts as an Island is no different than saying 80% include Plains. A more accurate approach here would be to say how many include Brainstorm. This, still, is not a good argument for banning. With that logic than Swords to Plowshares should be under the micsroscope too. Or wait, what about Wasteland? More decks can splash a colorless land than those that can find room for Brainstorm AND the U needed to cast it.

[Rizso]

Why does everyone keep touting answers to brainstorm, like Chains of Mephistopheles?

They're hard to find, they're expensive, and if they become "necessary" to compete against brainstorm deck then they become even more expensive and hard to find ala Moat...

Chains isn't an answer unless you already have them, and for most people trying to get into the format they are simply not an option.

If chains where instant it would be much better. No one in their right mind will ever cast a brainstorm into a chain... If a new chain was made but instant it would be possible to surpice someone with it.

[Shtchepahn]

I hear many voices saing about color inbalance in top decks, but since when this game is about playing colors? Just play cards, not colors!

Comparing Survival ban to current Brainstorm state is not in place, those cards have completely different story behind them.
SotF was tier 1,5 at best, and got too powerful with Vengevine release, completely changing the format, while Brainstorm is tier 1 since the beginning, and Snapcaster release didn't changed the format that much. SM is just nice addition in certain deck types, while he is really poor in other, just people have to realize the card is not so great and basically overhyped.

Legacy without Brainstorm would change dramatically, possibly leading to next problems and ban-wishes, but it is to hard to predict what would happen, and I don't believe anybody will take the risk of banning it.

Instead of supporting restrictions, Legacy players should be more inventive, developing wide range of new archetypes instead of jumping onto bandwagons.

[TheyCallMeTim]

Instead of supporting restrictions, Legacy players should be more inventive, developing wide range of new archetypes instead of jumping onto BANwagons.

Fixed.

Just kidding. I agree, this game is about inventive deck building and winning in creative ways. There are many viable achetypes, even ones that include Isalnds but not Brainstorm. This sort of "problem" that arises (I don't think it's a problem) should be met by a deck that can beat the metagame. That's why we call them Decks To Beat. Not so we can all look at the list and say we need 4x of one particular card. But so we can look at what strategies are prevalent and how we can beat them.

[Roman Candle]

Price of Progress
Wasteland
Back to Basics
Surgical Extraction


I really don't think any of these are a good argument not to play two colors. Four Underground Seas is pretty negligible in the face of Price or Progress, Wasteland, and Back to Basics, especially when you can Polluted Delta for a basic Island.

And I really really doubt people are bringing in Surgical Extraction against your UB control deck. And if they are, you're going to win because they're playing terrible terrible cards like Surgical Extraction instead of good cards.


With that logic than Swords to Plowshares should be under the micsroscope too.

Swords to Plowshares is a Swords to Plowshares. Brainstorm can be anything. It can even be a Swords to Plowshares.

The argument to ban Brainstorm isn't that its too popular, its that its too good -- its popularity is simply one of many indicators of this. If the argument was simply that "popularity = banworthiness," we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We're having this discussion because Jesus Christ have you played with Brainstorm? It's head and shoulders above any other card in the format. And while there are certainly arguments not to play Swords to Plowshares in a deck, not playing Brainstorm in a Legacy deck is legitimately a bad strategic choice.

[UnderwaterGuy]

The argument to ban Brainstorm isn't that its too popular, its that its too good

That isn't a useful argument. There will always be some best legal cards. You can't just ban each card that is the best. Banned cards are the ones like Survival or Misstep that completely polarize the format. Brainstorm doesn't do that, no matter how much you might hate the color blue.

[(nameless one)]

Its funny because both Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine and Brainstorm/Snapcaster Mage issue can be resolved by using graveyard hate as a deck building standard.

I mean if decks can put creature removal on the main, why not graveyard hate?

[Roman Candle]

That isn't a useful argument. There will always be some best legal cards. You can't just ban each card that is the best. Banned cards are the ones like Survival or Misstep that completely polarize the format. Brainstorm doesn't do that, no matter how much you might hate the color blue.

I'm not arguing to ban it because its the best card, i'm arguing for a ban because its too good. The two concepts are wholly different.

And if you don't think that Brainstorm is polarizing, I have some Taigas to sell you for the price of any blue dual.

[xDITx Force of Will]

NOPE

I am honestly very, very surprised to see people talking about banning SCM and Delver. We have only had the cards for a handful of weeks... Give the format some time to adjust, seriously, this was faster than people started crying about Mental Misstep.

This is supposed to be one of the better Legacy communities, but there does seem to be a lack of wanting to innovate... There are decks that beat t1 Delver people

[TheyCallMeTim]

Swords to Plowshares is a Swords to Plowshares. Brainstorm can be anything. It can even be a Swords to Plowshares.

Brainstorm can only be whatever you find in the top 3. The rest of your 60 can only dictate what you find. DCI has removed virtually every "tutor" from the format, now one that says "search 5% of your deck, put some of those in your hand, don't shuffle afterward and put 2 dead cards in it's place"? Yes, it is good, especially with Fetchlands. I have played it too. And Dark Confidant. And Jace. And Sylvan Library. Wait, remember Sylvan or Brainstorm/Abundance? Talk about broken.

[DragoFireheart]

Typical that a blue hater like CorpT would bow out once challenged. Either that or he's busy.

Riddle me this: if Brainstorm is so powerful for blue decks, then why does the only competitive mono-blue deck (Merfolk) not use Brainstorm in more than 19 top eight decks in the past 4 years?

[Zunam]

I' am voting for No because:

-I don't see how Snapcaster broke Brainstorm. I almost never flashbacked Brainstorm with it and almost never got it flashbacked against me. (maybe I just didn't get the title right)
-The impact of Banning Brainstorm is unpredictable and I personally think that the Meta will become less diverse. The Meta will definitely change but what makes people so sure that the Meta will become more diverse or better in general?
-Brainstorm is not broken in a way, let's say Flash was. In general I have the opinion that Banning should only happen if absolutely necessary (e.g. a Combo dominating everything, no answers or not enough answers exist, invalidating a large number of deck-types,..).

[Roman Candle]

Riddle me this: if Brainstorm is so powerful for blue decks, then why does the only competitive mono-blue deck (Merfolk) not use Brainstorm in more than 19 top eight decks in the past 4 years?

Hasn't this been answered ad nauseam in the other thread? Merfolk should be playing brainstorm and just because people top8 without it doesn't mean its optimal.

Also when the hell did "blue hater" become an offensive name?

[Zunam]

Hasn't this been answered ad nauseam in the other thread? Merfolk should be playing brainstorm and just because people top8 without it doesn't mean its optimal.

Are you really suggesting that no one tried it in Merfolk and that the reason for it not being played is that people just didn't realize that it would make the deck better?

Merfolk has reasons for not playing it but it is certainly not that people doesn't realize its power.

[4eak]

Imho, it is an uphill battle to defend Brainstorm in Merfolk. Brainstorm is awesome, but not in Merfolk (at least not in my experience).

Outside of the discussions of whether or not Brainstorm will or should be banned, I'm wondering what the Legacy metagame would look like without Brainstorm. What decks crumble, weaken, improve, and rise to the top both directly and indirectly because of a (hypothetical) banning of Brainstorm?

Combo decks and blue-based aggro control decks seem to be the largest losers. Do they merely weaken or crumble without Brainstorm? I'm not sure who the winners would be.

Merfolk, for example, thrives because it preys upon Brainstorm-using decks, and if Brainstorm got banned, Merfolk's presence would likely diminish. That might seem counterintuitive, as Merfolk's matchup against decks which previously relied on Brainstorm would be greatly improved, but the decks which used Brainstorm may have been keeping Merfolk's predators at bay. Assuming the presence of previous Brainstorm-using decks would diminish, and Merfolks predators became less vulnerable or more abundant in the metagame, Merfolk may weaken. Merfolk would be both less necessary in the metagame and more vulnerable.

It is an interesting thought experiment. It kinda reminds me of that No-goyf tournament we had here on MTS.


peace,
4eak

[Roman Candle]

Are you really suggesting that no one tried it in Merfolk and that the reason for it not being played is that people just didn't realize that it would make the deck better?

Merfolk has reasons for not playing it but it is certainly not that people doesn't realize its power.

I'm suggesting that people hear other people say Brainstorm is bad in merfolk and copy lists without Brainstorm without really testplaying it for themselves.

What reasons does Merfolk have for not playing Brainstorm?

[DragoFireheart]

I suspect that non-blue combo and aggro-combo decks would rise. Chalice stompy decks would appear since if you can't use brainstorm, may as well play a deck that doesn't use it anyways. Zoo and Maverick would also go on the rise. I think the meta would speed up quite a bit, ensuring that Goblin decks stay dead. Merfolk would die off as there are less people playing blue. Belcher decks might appear in larger numbers since it has to worry less about someone having the ability to have FoW turn 1 when on the play.

It'd be interesting to say the least.

[DragoFireheart]

I'm suggesting that people hear other people say Brainstorm is bad in merfolk and copy lists without Brainstorm without really testplaying it for themselves.

What reasons does Merfolk have for not playing Brainstorm?

Their deck is already highly redundant. They also don't run fetchlands and those that do have really bad mana bases (2 colors with 4 wastes and 4 manlands? Ouch).

[Roman Candle]

Their deck is already highly redundant. They also don't run fetchlands and those that do have really bad mana bases (2 colors with 4 wastes and 4 manlands? Ouch).

Let's not pretend that all cards in Merfolk are equally good at all times. For example. Merfolk plays lands.

Also I really doubt its that difficult to play fetchlands in Merfolk... You can be monocolored and play fetches.

[Zunam]

My guess it that the best Aggro decks would be dominating (Zoo, Goblin, Maverick).
These are just the Best at what they do and will not allow any magical rise of other Aggro decks just because of the Banning of Brainstorm.
Stormcombo will struggle except for maybe Belcher and SI which could become the decks to beat Aggro.
Rock/Junk style deck Aggro-Control will rise a bit but still loose to both Ultra-Fast Combo and won't do too well against dedicated Aggro.
Merfolk will disappear as will controlish StoneBlade Decks or Control in general.

If this would be a desirable Meta: I don't know, maybe...

[Zunam]

Let's not pretend that all cards in Merfolk are equally good at all times. For example. Merfolk plays lands.

Also I really doubt its that difficult to play fetchlands in Merfolk... You can be monocolored and play fetches.

You are listing what Brainstorm does but not why it would make Merfolk better. Yo have to ask yourself: Is changing the deck (so that it runs fetches; cuts whatever cards to fit Brainstorm) really worth the effect Brainstorm is providing? Have you tried it?
At least I didn't like it at all (which doesn't necessarily mean anything but was enough for me to discard the thought of running it).
That also doesn't mean that Brainstorm is good card in general so let's start discussing the topic again.

[Jim Higginbottom]

I would definitely quit playing legacy if brainstorm was banned.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm going to explain right now that it's a bad idea to look at cards only in terms of function, outside of power level. Like StP is StP because of its efficiency, flexiblity and cost. If StP were banned tomorrow, a lot of decks would pick up Path to Exile, but many wouldn't because some decks care about that drawback a lot more. And if, God forbid, both StP and PtE were banned tomorrow, very few decks would start playing Sunlance and Condemn.

So simply saying that banning Brainstorm will just cause people to swap out those slots 1-for-1 for Top or Ponder is misguided at best.


When if at any time has it been closer in Legacy?

Having done these numbers several times over the years, there's been a steady and creeping growth of blue as a percentage of winning decks since virtually the time it was created.

I did the numbers over a year ago in this thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?18629-Big-Pile-of-Numbers-Color-penetration-in-Legacy), most recently, before Survival got axed.

At that point, with Vengevine decks, many of them without white, dominating, we had seen the first downward tick in blue for a while, but it was still around 65% of the field. Now it's up to about 75% in one year, and I honestly think blue is probably being underplayed atm. We're already seeing a decline in Zoo's numbers, for instance.

[Misplayer]

I'm not sure when it happened, but Legacy became the format of Chicken Littles at some point.

Weekly SCG 5k decklists for people to overanalyze has probably contributed to this. I'd be more interested to see what % of the field played Brainstorm and did well with it over multiple large tournaments versus other cards/archetypes. If there were 5 Burn players out of 500 and one made top 8, versus 50 Uxx Tempo players and 2 made top 8, which says more about a deck's ability to win in a given metagame? Did the Burn player have good matchups all day, or rip Price of Progress every time he needed it, or sneak in on fortuitous breakers?

My point is that there's so much variability in every game of every matchup of every round of every tournament, that it's only so worthwhile to use Top 8s and Top 16s as a basis for arguing the banning of a card that (a) is played and so many archetypes, and (b) doesn't have a powerful effect on the game-state.

What I would be interested to see is the results of some matchup-by-matchup testing that could give insights such as "Tempo RUG was able to consistently win versus [goblins,zoo,whatever deck is allegedly being pushed out by Brainstorm] on the back of the card selection and quality provided by Brainstorm", "[Non-blue Deck X] is not worth playing because adding blue/Brainstorm would improve it's worse matchups and turn it into [existing blue deck]", or "[Non-blue Deck X] is not worth playing because it has a bad matchup against blue decks, and it can't be adjusted to beat a blue metagame without fundamentally changing it".

I still think that the almost weekly lists that are published are as much to blame as anything for decks you're going to face at any given tournament. People (myself included) will go look at what's placing at large events, figure that deck must be good (it probably is) and go play it. Then, 50% of the field does the same thing, and likely 50% of those decks will make the next top 8 provided they have an even matchup against the rest of the field. When combo cropped up after the banning of Mental Misstep, everyone picked up something blue because conventional wisdom is that blue beats combo. I guess now that blue is everywhere, the field must either think that nothing has a favorable matchup against all the flavors of blue, or people would rather play Tempo RUG or UW Stoneblade than something like Maverick.

tl;dr - no, because I like to play blue and Brainstorm.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You skewed that data dramatically to favor you.

Red may be more than 10% of only 30 decks but I expect it is in dramatically more decks in lower percents.

Why don't you provide more information if you have it so available? If your data is so strong and convincing you shouldn't need to manipulate it and be vague.

Also, I'm absolutely ok with blue being in 85% of those decks (whichever decks they are). It's ridiculous to decide that each color must be exactly equally represented. The format shifts and it isn't the end of the world. Bans aren't needed.

In the long run we're all dead, as Keynes said. Why shouldn't Wizards actively shape the format to improve it?

I see a lot of people applying a lot of bad and flawed economic theories to the metagame here. First it was efficient market theory, and now it's the belief that the metagame is self-correcting if given enough time.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Weekly SCG 5k decklists for people to overanalyze has probably contributed to this.

Actually, it was a lot easier when we had Deckcheck.

[Aggro_zombies]

Actually, it was a lot easier when we had Deckcheck.
Eh, not really. Deckcheck sampled a much larger number of tournaments and so there was more likely to be variation in the data, allowing for a more well-rounded look at the metagame. With only one data point (the last SCG T16), it's much easier to come up with a skewed picture of the metagame and assume that strategy X is too dominant/unbeatable/needs a banning.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I mean it was easier to get a broader look at the metagame.

I agree that the SCG Opens alone give a very narrow and somewhat stifled look at Legacy, there's a big SCG echo chamber effect.

[KevinTrudeau]

I want to ban Brainstorm.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but everyone in this thread. I have two questions (and this is assuming that the blue decks in question have reached a point of unanswerability in the current metagame with making a specific deck to prey upon it e.g. Affinity, anti-Affinity)-- are you positive that banning Brainstorm would prove to be more effective in mitigating the dominace of blue over banning and/or unbanning something else? Have you fully considered the potential repercussions of a metagame without Brainstorm?

[Mr. Safety]

Its funny because both Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine and Brainstorm/Snapcaster Mage issue can be resolved by using graveyard hate as a deck building standard.

I mean if decks can put creature removal on the main, why not graveyard hate?

I like this post...in a format as diverse as legacy, dedicating maindeck slots to graveyard hate may just be the most pragmatic approach to the entire situation.

Kudos for this post, Oh Nameless One.

[DragoFireheart]

Well, Zoo decks main-deck artifact/enchantment hate ala Qasali Pridemage. Why not do the same for graveyards by using creatures?

[Aggro_zombies]

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but everyone in this thread. I have two questions (and this is assuming that the blue decks in question have reached a point of unanswerability in the current metagame with making a specific deck to prey upon it e.g. Affinity, anti-Affinity)-- are you positive that banning Brainstorm would prove to be more effective in mitigating the dominace of blue over banning and/or unbanning something else? Have you fully considered the potential repercussions of a metagame without Brainstorm?
Here's what I think:

Snapcaster gets worse. Not being able to draw EOT for three limits Snapcaster to flashing back removal or Spell Snare/Pierce on the opponent's turn. Snapcastering on your turn for Ponder/Preordain is probably not good enough when you could just run Top and get a similar effect every turn for 1.
Storm combo gets worse. Ponder and Preordain are not as good in storm combo because they put fewer cards into your hand on your combo turn. I don't know how much worse that would make these decks, but they would likely take a significant hit.
Blue tempo does not get significantly worse. You lose the ability to dig for counters on an opponent's turn, but since most of your counters are either free or one mana, tapping a bit on your turn to set up a counter wall is not a significant cost. Furthermore, for what these decks are trying to do, Ponder and Preordain are not that much worse than Brainstorm.
Blue control does not get significantly worse. These decks care more about drawing three and then shuffling away chaff, but you still have access to Top to sculpt draws. We might see people turn to stuff like Predict to plug the gap a little bit, but I don't think losing Brainstorm takes a ton of wind out of these decks' sails.
People will abandon blue because it is perceived to be much worse now. Format talking heads will likely proclaim the death of blue because of the loss of Brainstorm means there's no true "draw three" in the format anymore. Losing Brainstorm is a hit to blue control because, despite the fact that casting Brainstorm nets you no increase in hand size, your hand's card quality goes up much more from casting it than from casting Ponder/Preordain. However, the perception of blue's weakness will likely cause a shift in the meta, with people either leaving the format (as Nightmare has threatened to do, IIRC) or people choosing "non-real" decks like Zoo or whatever.


Make no mistake: losing Brainstorm is a big, but not insurmountable, deal. Blue gets worse, but not significantly so. However, I think banning BS will snap people out of autopilot and lead to less blue, which accomplishes the goal of a diverse meta even if BS doesn't need to be banned in an objective, "in a vacuum" sense.

[DragoFireheart]

Here's what I think:
...or people choosing "non-real" decks like Zoo or whatever.
[/list]

However, I think banning BS will snap people out of autopilot...

What in gods name are you talking about?

[Aggro_zombies]

What in gods name are you talking about?
Read a Drew Levin/Ari Lax/whoever article every now and then.

[Koby]

Well, Zoo decks main-deck artifact/enchantment hate ala Qasali Pridemage. Why not do the same for graveyards by using creatures?

you mean like:
Heap doll
yixlid jailer
scavenging ooze
Jotun grunt
?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but everyone in this thread. I have two questions (and this is assuming that the blue decks in question have reached a point of unanswerability in the current metagame with making a specific deck to prey upon it e.g. Affinity, anti-Affinity)-- are you positive that banning Brainstorm would prove to be more effective in mitigating the dominace of blue over banning and/or unbanning something else? Have you fully considered the potential repercussions of a metagame without Brainstorm?

1) I am certain that banning Brainstorm makes blue significantly worse, but it's certainly possible that banning something else would be more effective at this task. It's hard to think what, though.

2) I don't think anyone can accurately predict what a metagame without Brainstorm would look like.

[DragoFireheart]

Read a Drew Levin/Ari Lax/whoever article every now and then.

You said people will play non-blue decks like Zoo. You then said they would snap out of auto-pilot mode. Last time I checked, Zoo was more auto-pilot than blue-aggro decks.

[DragoFireheart]

you mean like:
Heap doll
yixlid jailer
scavenging ooze
Jotun grunt
?

Maverick already uses ooze (which hilariously kicks the crap out of Tarmogoyfs).

I think people should play more Maverick before calling for bans on blue.

[Aggro_zombies]

You said people will play non-blue decks like Zoo. You then said they would snap out of auto-pilot mode. Last time I checked, Zoo was more auto-pilot than blue-aggro decks.
I meant autopiloting deck/card choices.

[Koby]

Maverick already uses ooze (which hilariously kicks the crap out of Tarmogoyfs).

I think people should play more Maverick before calling for bans on blue.

Ironically, I played 2 Ooze and got T8. I also don't think that Brainstorm needs to go. Right now, Legacy is on a blue-high. R&D needs to address the imbalance between blue spells (and spell-like creatures) to give Legacy/Eternal more tools in colors other than Blue. frogboy I'm looking at you.

Until that happens, I'll continue to play Maverick and Beat On Blue.

[DragoFireheart]

I meant autopiloting deck/card choices.

Oh well in that case I still disagree since people will just auto-pilot Zoo lists. It's called net-decking.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Oh well in that case I still disagree since people will just auto-pilot Zoo lists. It's called net-decking.

people will netdeck the best deck no matter wat it is. it's silly to think banning cards will have any effect on that.

[warai]

Blue is fun to play, period.
Brainstorm is a overpowered card, but it keeps the fun of playing blue in legacy.. People are just lazy in playing other decks and everyone likes to have Daze, FoW, Brainstorm, Clique, Snapcaster, Spell Snare, Jace, etc on their side.. If Wizards want us to play all creatures vs creatures with stupid combos I'm against that kind of format.

People that are complaining and who want to see BS banned do us a favor.. Go play modern..

[makochman]

I like this post...in a format as diverse as legacy, dedicating maindeck slots to graveyard hate may just be the most pragmatic approach to the entire situation.

Kudos for this post, Oh Nameless One.

It's OK if the format makes people maindeck a single Scavenging Ooze or Bojuka Bog to tutor for. But if people had to maindeck dedicated graveyard hate cards that do little else, like Tormod's Crypt and Surgical Extraction... that would be a different story altogether. I recall some Survival apologists argued people should do that. But nobody else wants a format like that. Hell, I even doubt those Survival players would have wanted that, 'cause if they did, they would have gone over to Standard to stomp Caw Blade with MD Torpor Orbs.

[NyxathidHorror]

You skewed that data dramatically to favor you.

Red may be more than 10% of only 30 decks but I expect it is in dramatically more decks in lower percents.

Why don't you provide more information if you have it so available? If your data is so strong and convincing you shouldn't need to manipulate it and be vague.

Also, I'm absolutely ok with blue being in 85% of those decks (whichever decks they are). It's ridiculous to decide that each color must be exactly equally represented. The format shifts and it isn't the end of the world. Bans aren't needed.

Couldn't agree more. No bans are needed...

[Mr. Safety]

you mean like:
Heap doll
yixlid jailer
scavenging ooze
Jotun grunt
?

Surgical Extraction seems pretty powerful right now, as does Nihil Spellbomb. I continue to find new targets for Surgical Extraction. Nihil Spellbomb is a cantrip along with targeted graveyard removal (which is why I think it is better suited for maindeck inclusion over Tormod's Crypt or Relic of Progenitus...but you could make a pretty good argument for Relic also.)

Imagine a format with expected maindeck graveyard hate...all of a sudden Tarmogoyf and Tombstalker don't seem so great anymore (this being the metaphorical Bizarro Fantasy Land)

[Koby]

Surgical Extraction seems pretty powerful right now, as does Nihil Spellbomb. I continue to find new targets for Surgical Extraction. Nihil Spellbomb is a cantrip along with targeted graveyard removal (which is why I think it is better suited for maindeck inclusion over Tormod's Crypt or Relic of Progenitus...but you could make a pretty good argument for Relic also.)

The original question was asking about creature's with those abilities. This class of cards allows you to still have functional yard hate while not playing dead cards. Spell-based yard hate is more narrow, even if it is good against certain decks.

How many times do enjoy facing people playing: Turn 1 Dark Ritual, Hymn to Tourach, Extirpate?

[Malakai]

Zoo is the winningest deck in Legacy's history.

[paK0]

Voted No

Something blue needs to go, but I guess Delver would be the better choice

[Lemnear]

Voted No

Something blue needs to go, but I guess Delver would be the better choice

They will never ban a creature. They might use newly printed creatures to justify banning other cards. Snapcaster could be for brainstorm that Vengevine was for Survival.

Hell, They would even print a creature that gives your Instants and Sorceries storm and LaPille would claim that the Instants and Sorceries are the problem and Not the creature.

[paK0]

They will never ban a creature. They might use newly printed creatures to justify banning other cards. Snapcaster could be for brainstorm that Vengevine was for Survival.

True, I don't think the Delver ban will happen but it is what I believe would be best for the format.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

As someone who has advocated banning Goyf repeatedly, and still would favor that, I tend to agree with Lemnear, at least to a large extent; I think they'd be very reluctant to ban a creature for just being good on the ground again, and if it comes to a combo they prefer to ban a noncreature half. They banned Survival over Vengevine and Flash over Protean Hulk.

Whether they're burned from memories of Juggs and Kird Ape being banned in old Extended or they just figure players are more attached to their critters, I dunno. I think it also goes doubly for new cards. The odds of them banning Snapcaster or Delver over the problem spell from Legacy's dim past seem small at best. Delver right now is one of the top three or four creatures for sheer aggressiveness in Legacy before its superior color placement is taken into account; but without Brainstorm it would be significantly weaker. I think they're going to give that a go first, then.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Blue is fun to play, period.
Brainstorm is a overpowered card, but it keeps the fun of playing blue in legacy.. People are just lazy in playing other decks and everyone likes to have Daze, FoW, Brainstorm, Clique, Snapcaster, Spell Snare, Jace, etc on their side.. If Wizards want us to play all creatures vs creatures with stupid combos I'm against that kind of format.

People that are complaining and who want to see BS banned do us a favor.. Go play modern..

Every "Go play modern" post in this thread just feeds into a mountain of proverbial douche-baggery and retardation. Nice mature answer there, bro.

Anyways, you state that playing blue is "fun," like it's a fact or something - when it's quite obviously your opinion. Here's mine: it is not fun - in fact, I would rather play against Dredge all day long then play blue control. I would rather play the most mindless aggro deck possible. I hate playing blue control.

[xfxf]

I think Snapcaster can be a candidate. Blue is a color of spells. It doesn't need such powerful spell-creatures like Vendilion Clique and Snapcaster Mage. It already has powerful spells. Powerful creatures should belong to other colors, utility creatures should help out other colors (green, red, white). Delver is a strong candidate due to being both blue and a strong beater but it is not as widely used as the Snapcasters and it really works well in the Tempo department. Snapcaster is used in everything blue including Combo.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Delver right now is one of the top three or four creatures for sheer aggressiveness in Legacy before its superior color placement is taken into account; but without Brainstorm it would be significantly weaker.

As someone that has played extensively with the current RUG decks I don't agree with this. Brainstorm can set up Delver to flip but honestly he flips the first turn on his own about half the time (a little more I think). Obviously Brainstorm interacts well with Delver but it's wrong to think that it will "significantly" weaken it. Delver would still be a widely played creature.



Hell, They would even print a creature that gives your Instants and Sorceries storm and LaPille would claim that the Instants and Sorceries are the problem and Not the creature.

The idea of this is absolutely hilarious. Stormcaster Mage would be the best funnest card ever. :D

[DragoFireheart]

Clearly the best way to balance blue is to strengthen other colors and decks.


UNBAN THE FOLLOWING:

Earthcraft


Why: It would help boost elf decks which as of now are very close to becoming powerful in regards to being tier 1. Not every deck could abuse it and may encourage mono-green decks to try and take advantage of this card. More aggro/combo decks would emerge.

Decks that would benefit most: Elves.


Goblin Recruiter


Why: Goblins have been doing pretty poorly lately. Between SFM decks, Maverick, Zoo, and combo, Goblins is not a good choice. I feel that by unbanning this goblin, it may give them the boost they need to become more competitive again.

Decks that would benefit most: Goblins.


Survival of the Fittest


Why: Between Snappy being able to recur cards like Surgical Extraction and Extirpate along with the fact that aggro decks like Maverick have the ability to get man-decked yard hate like Scavenging Ooze and Bojuka Bog, I think putting SotF on parole in the current meta would be a safe experiment to try.

Decks that would benefit most: Non-blue aggro/combo decks were being optimized as the best lists before it got banned.





Unban these at the same time for lulz:

Balance
Black Vise
Frantic Search
Gush
Hermit Druid
Land Tax
Memory Jar
Mental Misstep
Mind Twist
Mind's Desire
Skullclamp
Worldgorger Dragon

[xDITx Force of Will]

Goblin Recruiter


Why: Goblins have been doing pretty poorly lately. Between SFM decks, Maverick, Zoo, and combo, Goblins is not a good choice. I feel that by unbanning this goblin, it may give them the boost they need to become more competitive again.

Decks that would benefit most: Goblins.

Goblins is a good choice in this meta... Do you have SCG premium - or? Reason, I responded to this; Goblin Recruiter is a horribly designed card for play purposes and logistical purposes. The card literally lets you stack your deck, which can take a long time, plus the card is just straight up bonkers broken in Vial Gobs. The card takes several minutes to cast, and is just too good.

This is ridiculous to suggest unbanning Recruiter, I can only assume you've never played against it.

[Red Army]

Although I don't plan on ever owning a legacy deck that plays Brainstorm, I would not want to see it banned, but since I have no particular use for the card I wouldn't mind to see what would happen. I don't think it would be a total cataclysm for the game. I would just like to see more cards printed for my main deck and side-board to help even out match-ups that are won or lost by the smallest of margins. Nothing would upset me more than ubiquitous Legacy staples at mythic rarity. Other than that, people will still want to play with the 99% of other cards in Legacy besides Brainstorm.

Goblin Recruiter would be 'fair' in Legacy, but not against aggro decks. Unbanning Recruiter would be a concession to the fact that Legacy is all about blue Brainstorm decks, and Goblins would be the single best aggro deck in the format. < although I feel 'Food Chain' Goblins would suck in this day and age, Vial decks playing one or two Recruiters would be best equipped to fight Brainstorm.

[DragoFireheart]

Goblins is a good choice in this meta...

No it isn't and I don't give a shit what SCG thinks. The data at TC Decks doesn't support your views.

[xDITx Force of Will]

No it isn't and I don't give a shit what SCG thinks. The data at TC Decks doesn't support your views.

Ok, and its not SCG, its Drew Levin. I'd wager he knows a good deal more than you about legacy and meta calls in particular.

But you don't know shit about Goblins right? I mean your suggestion was ridiculous and then your response to my post has nothing to do with Gobs so I guess you don't know what you're talking about.

[DragoFireheart]

Ok, and its not SCG, its Drew Levin. I'd wager he knows a good deal more than you about legacy and meta calls in particular.

But you don't know shit about Goblins right? I mean your suggestion was ridiculous and then your response to my post has nothing to do with Gobs so I guess you don't know what you're talking about.

If Goblins is so good right now, where are all of the Goblin players?

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy&fecha=2011-10

FFS Burn performed better than Goblins. You're clearly talking out of your ass.

God, nothing worse than an arrogant Goblins player.

[xDITx Force of Will]

You're clearly talking out of your ass.

God, nothing worse than an arrogant Goblins player.

I think you're just being sad about me calling you out for not knowing shit about the subject you were arguing. Like, seriously, there is nothing to be discussed, you made a retarded suggestion. I was curious why you made the suggestion, you (by selectively not responding to my assertions about Recruiter) let everyone know you were ignorant on the subject by not saying anything about why your suggestion isn't laughable.

I play G/W Maverick, Dark Thresh and U/W/x Stoneblade mostly - I can build any legacy deck I want... Not an "arrogant goblins player" by a long shot, strange player archetype you have dreamed up there...

[DragoFireheart]

I think you're just being sad about me calling you out for not knowing shit about the subject you were arguing. Like, seriously, there is nothing to be discussed, you made a retarded suggestion. I was curious why you made the suggestion, you (by selectively not responding to my assertions about Recruiter) let everyone know you were ignorant on the subject by not saying anything about why your suggestion isn't laughable.


You didn't call me out on shit. In the past GR would have been too powerful but with the way the meta is currently looking it's a safe choice to at least try. I'm well aware of how powerful it is and have used it and played against it. You can pretend all you want that I'm "ignorant" but no one is going to fall for it.

It also doesn't take "several minutes to cast" unless you're new to the deck. Far less time than CounterTop decks take over the course of a single game.

[xDITx Force of Will]

You can pretend all you want that I'm "ignorant" but no one is going to fall for it.

It also doesn't take "several minutes to cast" unless you're new to the deck. Far less time than CounterTop decks take over the course of a single game.

I'm not looking to convince anyone you're ignorant on the subject, I was speaking with you and I wanted you to know I don't take your opinion on the subject seriously.

Also, yup, it does take minutes to stack most of the time, this really shows your newness to the deck. Countertop decks are also slow as shit so weird comparison to draw there...

[DragoFireheart]

I'm not looking to convince anyone you're ignorant on the subject, I was speaking with you and I wanted you to know I don't take your opinion on the subject seriously.

-Yup, still talking out of your ass.



Also, yup, it does take minutes to stack most of the time. Countertop decks are also slow as shit so weird comparison to draw there...

No they don't take "minutes" to stack unless you're new to the deck. Once you hit a GR you won't have to worry about using another since multiples are redundant when using them with Vial: one GR going off each game isn't nearly as big a deal as you are making it time wise. Seriously, have you used the card?

The reason I drew a comparison to CounterTop is if people can sit through and play CounterTop, they'll be just fine with GR.

[xDITx Force of Will]

-Yup, still talking out of your ass.



No they don't take "minutes" to stack unless you're new to the deck. Once you hit a GR you won't have to worry about using another since multiples are redundant when using them with Vial: one GR going off each game isn't nearly as big a deal as you are making it time wise. Seriously, have you used the card?

The reason I drew a comparison to CounterTop is if people can sit through and play CounterTop, they'll be just fine with GR.

Well now that I've looked at your Stoneforge Mystic + Counterbalance / Top deck I think that I don't have to take too much of what you have say too seriously. That deck is the most lulzy pile I've ever seen someone write a primer about LOL

[DragoFireheart]

Well now that I've looked at your Stoneforge Mystic + Counterbalance / Top deck I think that I don't have to take too much of what you have say too seriously. That deck is the most lulzy pile I've ever seen someone write a primer about LOL

Personal attack? I really should know better than to feed trolls. :laugh:

My bad, I'll stop feeding you.

[xDITx Force of Will]

Personal attack?

Nah, nothing against you personally, just the deck you made sucks. Why not play a good blue deck instead of CB with Stoneforges, incredibly ass backwards and awkward. I won't say anything more in the hopes of not derailing this thread any further.

[bowvamp]

Woah settle down! Or cool it? Basically, just don't flame.

Recruiter has issues that enable just too much tom-foolery. Especially tom-foolery involving getting every card a goblins player wants and then some. I think they even made Food Chain goblins a good deck back in the day. Trust me, you don't want to sit in front of nubs trying to learn the deck in front of you because you didn't concede immediately. Especially if they end up winning in a very long and roundabout way.

I know this because my play group unbanned it for a day.

[(nameless one)]

It's funny because the noobs learning to play Food Chain Goblins analogy can apply to noobs learning to play DDFT.

With that reason, I think we should be talking about the banning of Doomsday.

[death]

I vote yes but Snapcaster must go too. I want to see MUD, Junk, Stompy et al. have an equal footing with the blue decks around, not just Maverick. Legacy deserves a fresh start, it's up to the players to continue to support the format. At the end of the day, I'm convinced it's the right call.

[Amon Amarth]

Goblins is a good choice in this meta... Do you have SCG premium - or? Reason, I responded to this; Goblin Recruiter is a horribly designed card for play purposes and logistical purposes. The card literally lets you stack your deck, which can take a long time, plus the card is just straight up bonkers broken in Vial Gobs. The card takes several minutes to cast, and is just too good.

This is ridiculous to suggest unbanning Recruiter, I can only assume you've never played against it.

It does not take several minutes to resolve Recruiter. If you playtested then you would know what to stack on top of your deck. Recruiter is no worse than Top or similar cards. There are piles that you would memorize just like Doomsday. In addition, you don't always want to stack your deck. Sometimes all you need is to Wordly Tutor or set up a Ringleader pile. Plus, if someone resolves a Recruiter with Food Chain in play and you can't interact that turn why would you waste time and not concede? It's the same idea of being Waste-locked under a Trinisphere.

In response to the idea of Goblins becoming the default best aggro deck I say "So what?". I see no problem with that. There are two agressive decks in the format right now: Zoo and Maverick and the former is on the decline. No one has lamented the loss of all the other agressive decks that have fallen by the wayside and it appears the archetype needs a lot of help if they are going to continue their current trend of printing loads of Blue cards that do everything and are better than other colors cards. So in reality it would only supplant Maverick but that's just speculation at this point that deck might keep its niche.

Whether or not the deck abuses Food Chain or is sticks to the more conventional lists with an unbanned Recruiter is up in the air. That's something only playtesting would be able to answer; it would also be dependent on what the metagame looked like. If there were lots of creature decks I would most likely want Food Chain.

[Lemnear]

I vote yes but Snapcaster must go too. I want to see MUD, Junk, Stompy et al. have an equal footing with the blue decks around, not just Maverick. Legacy deserves a fresh start, it's up to the players to continue to support the format. At the end of the day, I'm convinced it's the right call.

Omg ... Nothing more to say...

[UnderwaterGuy]

Nothing more to say...

A lot of people arguing for completely non-interactive decks :/

Just because your pet deck isn't as good as it used to be doesn't mean the format is broken.

[Lemnear]

A lot of people arguing for completely non-interactive decks :/

Just because your pet deck isn't as good as it used to be doesn't mean the format is broken.

You got me wrong ... I found it ridiculous to claim that Stompy should be a Deck-to-beat and toe-to-toe with something like blue and one of it's flavors of the month aka BUG tempo

Sarcasm poorly tranfers in a forum

[UnderwaterGuy]

No I am on your side and knew it was sarcasm. I got it but we're just both confused.

[Octopusman]

Haha, I must say that this is such a heated topic.

Look at all of the vitriol in this thread. It's beautiful, but I would get back more on topic before the thread gets locked.


Polls are kind of a cold way to gauge and you can only glean so much from the replies in this thread.

Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that the "Brainstorm menace" is a fabricated threat.
If it's not one card, it's another. Right now, Brainstorm is in the crosshairs. I just wish people would chill the hell out and not complain so damn much.

We already lost some great cards due to bannings recently. I would, instead of Brainstorm's banning, would like to see responsible R&D from them. It's not consumer friendly to have them acquire cards aftermarket and then tell them they blew $x for nothing.
I'd also like to see them print some reactive answers. Remember Tsabo's Web? There are other examples if you remember.

After all, the zeitgeist and what people play at different points in time is often based on perceptions or other influences/cultural behaviors. Which is why one metagame in the same format can be so different (god I wish I had Europe's meta, for example).

I think that new hate is enough to make a strategy fall out of favor until people move on to something else. We don't and won't, I would argue, really experience a "runTheHate.dec or lose to it" meta.
The closest thing we have to this is Dredge, in my opinion, and that deck still exists.

Do you find yourself saying "Aw man, he cast Brainstorm! I'll scoop" when people play it? I didn't think so. Banned cards should have that feeling. All of the hoopla like "Well, you just don't know that you've already lost because that is the majestic power of Brainstorm" I'm not buying it.

TL;DR: Don't ban brainstorm.

[Cruser]

Voted NO.

Why you would ban cards? I dont get it instead you should cry for better cards in the other colors.


It would be so easy too push the other colors. But you just want ban cards becouse you cant handle them. SO many counter cards for brainstorm and co:

Chains of Mephistopheles

Grand Abolisher he need to brainstorm in his turn = less mana

if he has no mana open = discard

Ethersworn Canonist

and more.


So dont ban cards you think are too strong ask for cards in your color...

[Rune]

Voted no. I wouldn't fault WotC for banning Brainstorm, because it's almost impossible to argue that the card isn't too powerful. However, I think it's a big gamble to ban it, because it simply goes against what the vast majority of Legacy players want. If you read the GP Amsterdam coverage, they basically acknowledged that Brainstorm isn't fair, but that it's still an integral part of Legacy.

The fact that blue seems to be getting all the best cards in nearly every new set doesn't help matters either. At this point, I don't think Adam Barnello's idea of unbanning Survival is unreasonable.

[Gheizen64]

I find hilarious that people are even considering Chain as a counter to brainstorm. A 2 mana enchantment to counter a 1 mana instant? Chain is worse than meddling mage on brainstorm. Not to mean is cost inefficient and casting chain (which does nothing, by itself) is like a tempo black hole.

[Cruser]

I find hilarious that people are even considering Chain as a counter to brainstorm. A 2 mana enchantment to counter a 1 mana instant? Chain is worse than meddling mage on brainstorm. Not to mean is cost inefficient and casting chain (which does nothing, by itself) is like a tempo black hole.

Its funny that you cant think. Its not only for brainstorm its for card draw but thats too much for you. It was just an example what Chain can do.

That i even need to write that here gj man.

[Gheizen64]

Its funny that you cant think. Its not only for brainstorm its for card draw but thats too much for you. It was just an example what Chain can do.

That i even need to write that here gj man.

The only consistent card draw that is played alongisde Brainstorm is ponder. Not even JTMS is played that much after the MM ban. And you listing a 2 mana answer (not even a real counter, just virtual card advantage) for a 1 mana spell mean you have some hazy understanding of the fundamental of this game else everyone would play removal that cost more than the removed threat. There's a reason spell pierce and snare see play. There's a reason if the answer for weenie decks isn't simple removal but cards like pyroclasm. Mana efficiency. Playing a 2 mana enchantment that blank 7-8 1-mana instants in the opponent library (1 on average in hand) is the epitome of an inefficient answer, i mean, for the lovecraftian gods, it's arguably worse than surgical extraction on a brainstorm on a grave, you tell me that's efficient? And that cost 0 mana.
You can't really play cards to answer 1 mana instants, no matter what you've been told. The only card that came close was MM, card parity and mana advantage plus it was never dead when the opponent didn't have brainstorm. But MM is dead and gone now. The other possibility are cards that are also threats on their own, obviously.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If Goblins is so good right now, where are all of the Goblin players?

Efficient market theory is used strictly by tossers.


As someone that has played extensively with the current RUG decks I don't agree with this. Brainstorm can set up Delver to flip but honestly he flips the first turn on his own about half the time (a little more I think). Obviously Brainstorm interacts well with Delver but it's wrong to think that it will "significantly" weaken it. Delver would still be a widely played creature.

50% is a lot worse in this case than 80%, you're talking more than six times as likely a chance you'll go two turns without flipping. I think Delver will still be playable, but in fewer decks. "SignificantlY" worse but not outside of the Legacy playable range.

[DragoFireheart]

Efficient market theory is used strictly by tossers.


Translation: a deck is good because I said so.

[NesretepNoj]

I only play legacy. I like Brainstorm. Don't touch my game!

[Dreg]

In my humble opinion, Brainstorm should not be banned. It is an insanely powerful card, that's sure, but it also happens to be one of the pillars that hold up legacy itself. Banning brainstorm will cause a major wave of chaos and disorder in the format. More likely, it will lead to a chain-ban of other key cards, enlarging the already long banlist. As stated previously, banning brainstorm will cause a powering-down of most blue-based decks. This will lead to the viral diffusion of combo decks and more risky-but-rewarding gameplans. A deck we're all thinking about is Belcher. Blue decks would be forced to mull hard just to see an active force in the opening hand. Non-blue, non-combo decks would be forced to completely modify their game asset, bringing in the maindeck cards tipically designed for sideboards, or which could serve only for the purpose of stopping straightforward combo decks. The metagame, talking with havoc in my eyes (yes i'm not an optimistic person, i just tend to se the darkest part in every situation), will be reduced to a combo-or-hate type of metagame, similar to SotF times.

This will then lead to the entire redesigning of the banlist, giving more and more instability to the metagame. And this is the worst scenario I can thnk about.

And sorry if i put too many words in the tl;dr paragraph and so few explaining the fundamental concept.

[Intet's Attendant]

When blue-based control decks are doing well, it is a sign that it is a healthy format. This is because those decks tend to be the most interactive. They must sacrifice offensive potential in order to run defensive cards.

Defensive implies that it is defending against something, namely your opponent's moves. This signifies interaction and thus how Magic should be played. Not just two combo decks racing one another.

With Brainstorm, one must ask: does it increase player interaction?

[DragoFireheart]

In my humble opinion, Brainstorm should not be banned. It is an insanely powerful card, that's sure, but it also happens to be one of the pillars that hold up legacy itself. Banning brainstorm will cause a major wave of chaos and disorder in the format. More likely, it will lead to a chain-ban of other key cards, enlarging the already long banlist. As stated previously, banning brainstorm will cause a powering-down of most blue-based decks. This will lead to the viral diffusion of combo decks and more risky-but-rewarding gameplans. A deck we're all thinking about is Belcher. Blue decks would be forced to mull hard just to see an active force in the opening hand. Non-blue, non-combo decks would be forced to completely modify their game asset, bringing in the maindeck cards tipically designed for sideboards, or which could serve only for the purpose of stopping straightforward combo decks. The metagame, talking with havoc in my eyes (yes i'm not an optimistic person, i just tend to se the darkest part in every situation), will be reduced to a combo-or-hate type of metagame, similar to SotF times.

This will then lead to the entire redesigning of the banlist, giving more and more instability to the metagame. And this is the worst scenario I can thnk about.

And sorry if i put too many words in the tl;dr paragraph and so few explaining the fundamental concept.

- AKA: Modern format. Control is crap, combo is nerfed to the ground, and at least 50% of the winning decks are Zoo.



When blue-based control decks are doing well, it is a sign that it is a healthy format. This is because those decks tend to be the most interactive. They must sacrifice offensive potential in order to run defensive cards.

Defensive implies that it is defending against something, namely your opponent's moves. This signifies interaction and thus how Magic should be played. Not just two combo decks racing one another.

With Brainstorm, one must ask: does it increase player interaction?

-Absolutely.

[kiblast]

Anyway, RGB Goblins is a good call now. You don't see it in top8s because it's the most difficult aggro deck to play. And most Goblin players don't know how to properly handle the silver bullets, Matron, Vial triggers, etc etc. Also most builds you see on TCdecks have something wrong in them/are misbuilt.

Ps: Don't ban Brainstorm. I need it to find Fow when I'm on the play against a Lackey...

[Fossil4182]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

The critiques of these types of threads are all true. There are people who play Legacy that are alarmist and freak out when a card is perceived as "dominating". Affinity, Flash, CawBlade, and to a less extent Survival of the Fittest are all archetypes that were oppressive. I use the word oppressive versus dominant because contextually, they mean different things and when there is an oppressive deck, something ought to be banned; dominating cards should not be.

Dominate, by definition, means to have a commanding influence and oppressive means to unjustly inflict hardship. Does Brainstorm have a dominating effect on Legacy? Yes, it has a "commanding influence". However, I would contend its not oppressive. People don't (and shouldn't) design decks to defeat Brainstorm.deck because such a deck does not exist. By definition, eras in Magic such as the Black Summer, Affinity, Flash, and CawBlade were metagames when one homogenized deck pushed every other deck out of the format. Even if there were variations in those decks, it was usually done to gain an advantage in the mirror or combat the decks that were designed explicitly to take down the oppressive deck. This seems to fit the notion of inflicting unjust hardship and I would therefore classify these decks as oppressive. Hence, cards such as Necropotence, Flash, the Affinity engine, and Jace/Stoneforge Mystic were banned. However, the presences of Brainstorm does not push every other archetype out of contention in Legacy. As as evidenced by the last SCG top eight when three of the decks in the top eight did not feature Blue. Not to mention that 7 out of the top 16 decks did not have Brainstorm. The American metagame is heavily influenced by the SCG events which are driven by circuit Pros (who are heavy Blue proponents) and the legions of netdeckers....I mean subscribers that emulate them. So is it really that surprising that the Legacy Metagame is driven by legions of blue.deck players which gives off the perception of an unhealthy metagame?

The sick irony of this whole exercise is that it doesn't matter. WotC does not have a transparent policy when it comes to criteria for banning a card so we're at the whim of whatever Tom LaPille and the other powers that be are feeling on the day (or how terribly they got their butts kicked on MtGO that morning).

[Tao]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

The critiques of these types of threads are all true. There are people who play Legacy that are alarmist and freak out when a card is perceived as "dominating". Affinity, Flash, CawBlade, and to a less extent Survival of the Fittest are all archetypes that were oppressive. I use the word oppressive versus dominant because contextually, they mean different things and when there is an oppressive deck, something ought to be banned; dominating cards should not be.

Dominate, by definition, means to have a commanding influence and oppressive means to unjustly inflict hardship. Does Brainstorm have a dominating effect on Legacy? Yes, it has a "commanding influence". However, I would contend its not oppressive. People don't (and shouldn't) design decks to defeat Brainstorm.deck because such a deck does not exist. By definition, eras in Magic such as the Black Summer, Affinity, Flash, and CawBlade were metagames when one homogenized deck pushed every other deck out of the format. Even if there were variations in those decks, it was usually done to gain an advantage in the mirror or combat the decks that were designed explicitly to take down the oppressive deck. This seems to fit the notion of inflicting unjust hardship and I would therefore classify these decks as oppressive. Hence, cards such as Necropotence, Flash, the Affinity engine, and Jace/Stoneforge Mystic were banned. However, the presences of Brainstorm does not push every other archetype out of contention in Legacy. As as evidenced by the last SCG top eight when three of the decks in the top eight did not feature Blue. Not to mention that 7 out of the top 16 decks did not have Brainstorm. The American metagame is heavily influenced by the SCG events which are driven by circuit Pros (who are heavy Blue proponents) and the legions of netdeckers....I mean subscribers that emulate them. So is it really that surprising that the Legacy Metagame is driven by legions of blue.deck players which gives off the perception of an unhealthy metagame?

The sick irony of this whole exercise is that it doesn't matter. WotC does not have a transparent policy when it comes to criteria for banning a card so we're at the whim of whatever Tom LaPille and the other powers that be are feeling on the day (or how terribly they got their butts kicked on MtGO that morning).

So 7 out of 16 decks did not play Brainstorm. And you use that as a sign of balance if only 9/16 decks play the same card 4 times? This is actually more dominating than Affinity back in the day. And also oppressive. There were other decks that were good when Affinity was banned, they were just heavily metagames against Affinity. And the same thing happens today. Merfolk and Maverick just happen to be good against the majority of the blue Brainstorm based decks and that is the main reason why they are contenders so on top of the 60+% Brainstorm decks you have the rest filled up with decks that are good against Brainstorm deck. That is the same oppression as back then with Affinity.

[UnderwaterGuy]

So 7 out of 16 decks did not play Brainstorm. And you use that as a sign of balance if only 9/16 decks play the same card 4 times? This is actually more dominating than Affinity back in the day. And also oppressive. There were other decks that were good when Affinity was banned, they were just heavily metagames against Affinity. And the same thing happens today. Merfolk and Maverick just happen to be good against the majority of the blue Brainstorm based decks and that is the main reason why they are contenders so on top of the 60+% Brainstorm decks you have the rest filled up with decks that are good against Brainstorm deck. That is the same oppression as back then with Affinity.

All of your examples are of dominant decks not cards. Don't you think comparing Brainstorm, a card, to decks is a little unfair?

Fetchlands/Force of Will are as prevalent as Brainstorm, that doesn't mean they should be banned. Whatever the best card for a job is will be played, banning won't ever change that.


Efficient market theory is used strictly by tossers.



50% is a lot worse in this case than 80%, you're talking more than six times as likely a chance you'll go two turns without flipping. I think Delver will still be playable, but in fewer decks. "SignificantlY" worse but not outside of the Legacy playable range.

What the fuck are you talking about, "80%"?

You haven't made an argument for why this card should be banned and are just being contrary to some posters you clearly have a beef with. Stop talking about irrelevant economics and actually make a case for your side rather than only trying to divert.

[DragoFireheart]

So 7 out of 16 decks did not play Brainstorm. And you use that as a sign of balance if only 9/16 decks play the same card 4 times? This is actually more dominating than Affinity back in the day. And also oppressive. There were other decks that were good when Affinity was banned, they were just heavily metagames against Affinity. And the same thing happens today. Merfolk and Maverick just happen to be good against the majority of the blue Brainstorm based decks and that is the main reason why they are contenders so on top of the 60+% Brainstorm decks you have the rest filled up with decks that are good against Brainstorm deck. That is the same oppression as back then with Affinity.

Staple != Oppressive.

Brainstorm is a staple, not an oppressive card. It's not Skullclamp, it's not Survival of the Fittest, it's not Flash.

[Catitas]

please unban gush

[Gheizen64]

please unban gush

I'm all for this if they ban basic island and island duals.

[Dark Ritual]

Look you can argue a card has a large presence in a top 16 but that doesn't mean it's banworthy. Swords to plowshares and force of will are in the same boat as brainstorm when it comes to how much play they see but we don't see people arguing that swords to plowshares is wrecking the format or FoW sans DrJones.

Don't unban gush. Actually, unban gush so I can wreck even more face with doomsday because gush is ridiculous in that deck for drawing into a pile.

I hope when Dec. rolls around WotC gives us a present instead of taking our favorite one away i.e. they unban something like land tax or earthcraft.

[GGoober]

... because gush is ridiculous ...

Fixed that for you. Even if you can't abuse Gush in Legacy the way you can in Vintage (especially on the mana-generation side), it is still insanely powerful. Tempo, Combo, Aggro-control decks would all pack Gush. Gush also ROFLs at Wasteland. Whoever even thinks about unbanning Gush is simply ignoring other targets on the banned list that could be safely unbanned. Gush is definitely not the safer cards to unban.

Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?

[Koby]

Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?

Hi there, I'd love to explain that for you. You see, in the title it has "Snapcaster Mage". The other threads don't. Aside from that subtle difference, the same arguments have been used/refuted/reissued/re-refuted.

Please stand by for thread #11, discussing whether we should or should not ban Brainstorm.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Fixed that for you. Even if you can't abuse Gush in Legacy the way you can in Vintage (especially on the mana-generation side), it is still insanely powerful. Tempo, Combo, Aggro-control decks would all pack Gush. Gush also ROFLs at Wasteland. Whoever even thinks about unbanning Gush is simply ignoring other targets on the banned list that could be safely unbanned. Gush is definitely not the safer cards to unban.

Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?
this one has a poll

[Purgatory]

I voted "No".

I played my first bigger event last weekend with Snapcaster Mage in my 60, and I think I flashed back Brainstorm once all day. For most of the part, I saved them to play reactive spells or utility spells, like Spell Snare, Lightning Bolt, Surgical Extraction, Stifle etc. etc.

Needless to say, being able to flash it back for 1UU while getting a 2/1 on the side adds a lot of value to Brainstorm (flashback obviously adds lots of value to any card), but I still don't think it's ban-worthy. It sure is powerful, but it is a pillar of Legacy, and I think many players enjoy the format because they are able to play with these "broken", skill-testing spells.

<hyperbole>
Naw, let's ban the hell out of it, gather around and sing "ding dong the witch is dead" and then go back to play redundant creature decks, that don't need any silly filter spells!
</hyperbole>

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

The critiques of these types of threads are all true. There are people who play Legacy that are alarmist and freak out when a card is perceived as "dominating". Affinity, Flash, CawBlade, and to a less extent Survival of the Fittest are all archetypes that were oppressive. I use the word oppressive versus dominant because contextually, they mean different things and when there is an oppressive deck, something ought to be banned; dominating cards should not be.

This seems to be status quo confirmation bias. You just list decks where cards were banned as oppressive, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have described them as merely "dominant" had nothing been banned.



What the fuck are you talking about, "80%"?

From the context you might pick up that this is the estimate I am giving for your chances of swinging for 3 the turn after you drop a Delver.


You haven't made an argument for why this card should be banned and are just being contrary to some posters you clearly have a beef with. Stop talking about irrelevant economics and actually make a case for your side rather than only trying to divert.

Yes I have. Also efficient market theory is perfectly relevant here; it precisely describes the argument that, "if it were so good, people would be doing it already," or, "If some people are doing it, it must be good."

[DragoFireheart]

Yes I have.

Then restate your reasons because all I have seen you do is pull a GOP (aka, attack the other position without offering a counter-offer).

[Fossil4182]

This seems to be status quo confirmation bias. You just list decks where cards were banned as oppressive, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have described them as merely "dominant" had nothing been banned.

If you critique is that I listed only decks in which cards were banned...fair enough. I would describe the Jund Standard as being oppressive but nothing was banned from that metagame. Jund Standard top eights were only surpassed by UW Cawblade in terms of their percentages in top eights during that period.

Your critique also fails to address the rest of my post in which the decks I describe were homogenized into one deck with the variations existing only to get an edge in the mirror. Their linch pin card(s) were so dominate that they crossed the threshold into becoming oppressive. Therefore, the banning of cards such as Necropotence were justified.

Additionally, there is no Brainstorm.deck. The variety of Blue decks that exist lends to the diversity of the format. BUG, RUG, UW, UWx, UWG are vastly different decks with each color combination having different variants within it; for example, there is a BUG Landstill deck and tempo deck. Additionally, each of these decks have varying early, middle, and late game goals with different paths to victory. They also aren't designed to take an "edge" in the mirror since a deck like Team America approaches the game very differently than a RUG Counterbalance list. The argument about Brainstorm being oppressive (and therefore ban worthy) would only be true if there was a low number of viable decks that did not contain Brainstorm. Off the top of my head: GW Maverick, Goblins, BW Disruption, Zoo, Merfolk, Dredge, Enchantress, BWG Tempo/Control, Aggro Loam, Elf Combo, Imperial Painter, Team Italia, and Burn are non-Brianstorm decks that have placed within the last six months of major events. I'd say non-Brainstorm decks plenty diverse.

[SpikeyMikey]

One thing I'd like to point out, and this is irrelevant in terms of the Brianstorm ban discussion but very relevant in terms of bannings in general.

Deckbuilders thrive on stable metagames. A settled metagame has points that can be attacked. No deck is unassailable. As long as the tools are out there for different strategies (and in Legacy, the pool is big enough that this is almost always true) than the ones currently holding sway, a clever builder can create a deck that exploits these flaws without ruining the deck's game against the rest of the field. It won't beat everything, but it will beat the top deck(s) and enough of the rest of the field to perform well. On the other hand, a a semi-settled field is a horrible thing. There are enough decks that are tuned enough that you can't just count on superior construction skills to buy you wins but the field is not stable enough to have hard nodes you can attack.

It's been very difficult for me to come up with viable creations lately because there has been so much flux in the format. Just about the time I had NO RUG and U/W Stoneblade down, MM was banned. Things have been in flux for the last 7 months or so and it's fiendishly difficult to create a deck that I feel like would give me the best chance to win. Every time something gets banned, people who like to stick to their pet deck rejoice and people like me who prefer to play something fresh and innovative gnash our teeth.

Eventually, enough rapid change leads to people just giving up on trying to get ahead of a metagame. It's like trying to run on quicksand. Then you don't have people left to create the new decks to avoid the stagnation, leading to more cries for banning.

[death]

Before Snapcaster Mage and Mental Misstep everyone agreed the format was more or less balanced. The problem now is more and more good blue spells are being printed. A combo deck for example now has near zero of chance winning against 8x Spell Snare 8x Spell Pierce 8x Stifle 8x Flusterstorm 8x Surgical Extraction 8x Extirpate 8x Thoughtseize 8x Brainstorm + Force of Will. For an aggro comparison, replace those with 8x StP, 8x PtE, 8x Lightning Bolt, Fire//Ice, Dismember, Ghastly Demise etc. etc..

I can't say a format is diverse when almost every blue deck is an iteration of the following cards:
4 Brainstorm
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge Mystic
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Snare

If you haven't seen these suspects in your meta yet, don't worry you'll get there.

I voted yes because of reasons like 'Don't ban brainstorm because it's a pillar of the format, because it's nostalgic and fun, I use it to dig for Force.' Go play Ponder then. They don't convince me when the issue on the table is balance of the format. I have played Brainstorm back when it wasn't even a staple and when Bad River is 'the' fetchland. I still play Brainstorm now and I won't be happy to see it go.

But when games hinges on card X (2 crappy cards + fetchland), casting X = 3 new cards, this causes problems. Same as when a top deck card X yields a card that is 3 cards more deep at instant speed FTW = busted. We've seen a lot of games go like that. This is why Brainstorm is comparable to the Vintage card Ancestral Recall and its consistency makes non-blue an inferior choice.

And don't think that even without Brainstorm, Snapcaster Mage will be harmless. Snapcaster is the root of all this (like a broken record..)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Then restate your reasons because all I have seen you do is pull a GOP (aka, attack the other position without offering a counter-offer).

No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.

You know, -snip-, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.

The next time you decide to accuse me of not forming actual arguments I want you to literally -snip- Seriously? I know you know you are crossing the line.

[CorpT]

No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.

You know, -snip-, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.

-snip-

Ignoring Drago happened awhile ago. He ignores data and misrepresents arguments against him. Pretty typical.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If you critique is that I listed only decks in which cards were banned...fair enough. I would describe the Jund Standard as being oppressive but nothing was banned from that metagame. Jund Standard top eights were only surpassed by UW Cawblade in terms of their percentages in top eights during that period.

Okay, so this is a merely quantitative distinction? Can we get rough guidelines on where dominance turns into oppression? I mean traditionally in strategic terms, "dominance" denotes that no other strategy actually makes sense.


Your critique also fails to address the rest of my post in which the decks I describe were homogenized into one deck with the variations existing only to get an edge in the mirror. Their linch pin card(s) were so dominate that they crossed the threshold into becoming oppressive. Therefore, the banning of cards such as Necropotence were justified.

I mean I am not actually seeing that much variety between most Legacy decks. A significant portion of them are just three color aggro-control buffet, with the actual cards almost identical within colors and blue by far being the most usual core.


Additionally, there is no Brainstorm.deck. The variety of Blue decks that exist lends to the diversity of the format. BUG, RUG, UW, UWx, UWG are vastly different decks with each color combination having different variants within it; for example, there is a BUG Landstill deck and tempo deck. Additionally, each of these decks have varying early, middle, and late game goals with different paths to victory. They also aren't designed to take an "edge" in the mirror since a deck like Team America approaches the game very differently than a RUG Counterbalance list. The argument about Brainstorm being oppressive (and therefore ban worthy) would only be true if there was a low number of viable decks that did not contain Brainstorm. Off the top of my head: GW Maverick, Goblins, BW Disruption, Zoo, Merfolk, Dredge, Enchantress, BWG Tempo/Control, Aggro Loam, Elf Combo, Imperial Painter, Team Italia, and Burn are non-Brianstorm decks that have placed within the last six months of major events. I'd say non-Brainstorm decks plenty diverse.

Well first off we're not discussing the past six months, we're discussing the past month or so since Innistrad came out. The past six months extends not only before Innistrad but before New Phyrexia- completely irrelevant to the current meta.

Secondly, the diversity of other decks doesn't really matter if those decks don't put up numbers.

[DragoFireheart]

No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.

Still upset about the other topic where you showed yo clearly don't understand why Brainstorm is bad in merfolk? Get over it. I refuse to even read your other points when you fail to understand basic usages of Legacy staples like Brainstorm.



You know, fuck off, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.

Status quo confirmation bias much? I provide data for my points (ex: brainstorm being bad in merfolk) but you dismiss it. You then pretend that if you use data it's ok? Lol what a hypocrite! You are hilarious IBA! :laugh:




The next time you decide to accuse me of not forming actual arguments I want you to SNIP

How old are you? 15? I never claimed you didn't, I only asked you to repost since I haven't SEEN you post good counter arguments, and then you lash out with a strawman? The fact you actually resorted to a personal attack of that nature pretty much destroys your credibility as anything but an immature child. Thanks for admitting you were wrong though. :wink:

[DragoFireheart]

Ignoring Drago happened awhile ago. He ignores data and misrepresents arguments against him. Pretty typical.

More like you misrepresent what I do and ignore my questions and/or dodge them like a Nimble Mongoose dodging a Lightning Bolt.

I'm opinionated and I get into heated discussion easily, but don't accuse me of doing something if you don't plan on backing it up. I haven't ignored any data and I haven't misrepresented any arguments against me and if I did by some accident I seem to remember correcting myself and if I haven't I apologize in advance. I'm not perfect but don't pretend you are either. If you have a gripe with me say so, but last time I checked I asked you a question and you dodged the hell out of it.

Ball in your court...

[Vacrix]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

[UnderwaterGuy]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

As far as I can tell they just don't want to. For all this talk about banning Brainstorm it hasn't been coming from wotc. The only two cards played in Legacy from Innistrad are blue.

[DragoFireheart]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

The problem is that decks with a blue-shell will just splash it. For WotC to do what you ask, the creature needs to be multi-color (not of the blue color) or it needs non-blue requirements (Wild Nacatal). Even then...

The best way to balance out a card is to design it in such a manner that it demends the deck have a large number of non-blue instants/soceries to make it work. SotF is an example as it's better in decks with more creatures and less non-creatures. Mesa Enchantress is better in decks with more enchantments and less non-enchantments, etc.

[dontbiteitholmes]

The problem is that decks with a blue-shell will just splash it. For WotC to do what you ask, the creature needs to be multi-color (not of the blue color) or it needs non-blue requirements (Wild Nacatal). Even then...

The best way to balance out a card is to design it in such a manner that it demends the deck have a large number of non-blue instants/soceries to make it work. SotF is an example as it's better in decks with more creatures and less non-creatures. Mesa Enchantress is better in decks with more enchantments and less non-enchantments, etc.

First off Mesa Enchantress is not good in any deck.

Second, there is quite a bit WotC could be doing to make the color pie and thus the game more balanced. For example in a perfect world Goyf would cost GG, Mystic would cost WW, Snapcaster would cost UU (actually maybe RR, ya know?), and Dark Confidant would cost BB. Of course that's just for starters, that should be the baseline of how cards are designed. If they are super OMG so powerful and low CMC the trade off should be harder to splash.

Now a lot of people are going to read that and say, "But Team America runs Hymn, so your argument is invalid!!!" While this is true the deck also runs ZERO basics, which is the kind of risk/reward you should have to engage in to have access to uber-powerful 2cmc creatures IMO. In addition in my ideal world when Goyf/Snapper/Confidant all cost double mana you actually have to choose which ones to play instead of just throwing all 3 in the same deck and wrapping a ribbon around it. If you wanted to play 4x of each you might even be required to run things like City of Brass or Reflecting Pool to get that consistency. WotC eventually is going to shit the bed if they don't cut it out. I get that they want the Standard kiddies to have reasonable turn 2 access to most cards in multicolor decks so they shy away from double colored casting costs, but if they are going to keep printing severely undercosted bombs at 2cmc they need to consider moving to a model that doesn't let people just splash for Goyf by adding 4 green duals to whatever deck that usually wouldn't even consider green. That's what needs to happen to keep the color pie relevant. I feel like if WotC printed Hypnotic Specter now adays instead of when Garfield ran the game it would cost 2B.

In other words, cut the bullshit WotC designers, don't be so short sighted and take the color pie more seriously.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I haven't ignored any data and I haven't misrepresented any arguments against me and if I did by some accident I seem to remember correcting myself and if I haven't I apologize in advance.

"I've never robbed a church, and if I have say no more on it."


I'm not perfect but don't pretend you are either. If you have a gripe with me say so, but last time I checked I asked you a question and you dodged the hell out of it.

Ball in your court...

Weren't you the guy who was just insisting he was going to ignore my posts because I didn't "admit you were right"?

Yes, you are.

People have explained to you why they think Brainstorm should be banned. The raw data has been presented to you. Accept it or not, but cease stamping around the thread like an incontinent rhino.

[GGoober]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

They tried with Mental Misstep (which many people including IBA, myself, and many others claimed will push non-blue decks over blue decks until we realize the grave mistake).

If Mental Misstep was red phyrexian mana instead, things could be very interesting but they had to follow the color 'pie' (to be honest, as long as WotC is designing with the principle of following the color pie, we will never get out of the circle of blue being a key color in eternal formats).

New Phyrexia was a cool set, because it was allowing for the color issue to be dodged while playing with the color 'pie' theme in their design philosophy. However, this ironically added more power to blue decks when they can cast the good spells (Dismember, Extraction) with colorless mana lol.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?

Because the blue cards aren't the high-stakes cards, generally. It's hard to think of a more efficient blue hoser than REB, but it's not going to hit a Knight or a Stoneforge or a Tombstalker, nor Deed nor GSZ or whatever.

Like blue doesn't primarily make decks work, it makes decks work much more efficiently with counter backup.

The only cards that are pretty decent at hitting the things blue is doing most of the time, even more so in combo decks, are discard, which has massive weaknesses, and counters, which is reserved for the color itself.

If they let decent counters bleed out a bit (since blue apparently gets Nacatl, why not), and print some better color heavy spells, and more nonbasic hosers it might balance out a bit, but it's a risky proposition and it's easier to just ban Brainstorm.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Because the blue cards aren't the high-stakes cards, generally. It's hard to think of a more efficient blue hoser than REB, but it's not going to hit a Knight or a Stoneforge or a Tombstalker, nor Deed nor GSZ or whatever.

Like blue doesn't primarily make decks work, it makes decks work much more efficiently with counter backup.

The only cards that are pretty decent at hitting the things blue is doing most of the time, even more so in combo decks, are discard, which has massive weaknesses, and counters, which is reserved for the color itself.

If they let decent counters bleed out a bit (since blue apparently gets Nacatl, why not), and print some better color heavy spells, and more nonbasic hosers it might balance out a bit, but it's a risky proposition and it's easier to just ban Brainstorm.

You say it's risky, I say if your only job is to design Magic cards learn to do your job before I come and take it away from you.

The easy way isn't always the best way.

[Nelis]

I say no:

If brainstorm is banned:
1) Blue becomes neutered, true, but I think blue's dominance is largely consistent because of brainstorm but banning brainstorm still will not neuter blue (just run Ponder/Preordain and change your playouts a little on when to cantrip and not cantrip etc).

2) Blue has received way more good cards that simply banning brainstorm will weaken it. It's true that non-blue decks could be more viable with Brainstorm gone, but that is not true once again because combo will start preying on the format with brainstorm gone. Combo NEEDS brainstorm to truly shine, but control/blue also NEEDS brainstorm to fight combo etc. Brainstorm gone means that faster combo that win with raw power e.g. Belcher/TES (to some extent) would see a big power-increase. These are exactly the combo decks that non-blue aggro decks are weak against i.e. combo with potential of turn 1 kills.


That's a yes for me then. If it's really the case that instant based combo is replaced by Belcher type combo and non-combo blue decks are less represented then I'm all up for banning Brainstorm. At least Belcher is easier to hate with non-blue cards (black, green, white).

I don't mind an blue dominance by the way but the way it's dominating now is just not funny. I mean 17 blue based decks top 32 @gp amsterdam of which 7 in the top 8, Star City Games Legacy Baltimore 8 blue decks top 8, Star City Games Legacy Las Vegas 4 blue decks top 8, IS-MAGIC Legacy (germany) 6 blue decks top 8. And in the other recent tournaments on mtgtop8 (but with a top4) there's 2 to 3 blue based decks. C'mon.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You say it's risky, I say if your only job is to design Magic cards learn to do your job before I come and take it away from you.

I mean you'd have to print like a dozen new cards to be Legacy playable all at once, without any of them being actually busted.

It's an awful idea, way harder than just nuking a problem blue card or two.

[John Cox]

Okay, so this is a merely quantitative distinction? Can we get rough guidelines on where dominance turns into oppression? I mean traditionally in strategic terms, "dominance" denotes that no other strategy actually makes sense.



I mean I am not actually seeing that much variety between most Legacy decks. A significant portion of them are just three color aggro-control buffet, with the actual cards almost identical within colors and blue by far being the most usual core.



Well first off we're not discussing the past six months, we're discussing the past month or so since Innistrad came out. The past six months extends not only before Innistrad but before New Phyrexia- completely irrelevant to the current meta.

Secondly, the diversity of other decks doesn't really matter if those decks don't put up numbers.

I think what your saying is that you don't know how to understand the concept of format dominance when there's only 2 months of relevant data. This makes sense as format shifts take longer than the time we've had since innistrad came out. Why are we debating bannings with such a small sample size and inability to gauge format dominance?
Go!

[CorpT]

I think what your saying is that you don't know how to understand the concept of format dominance when there's only 2 months of relevant data. This makes sense as format shifts take longer than the time we've had since innistrad came out. Why are we debating bannings with such a small sample size and inability to gauge format dominance?
Go!

Blue has only dominated since Innistrad?

Come on. The problem is that every month they don't do something to fix one color's domination is another month we have to play like this. It's like when Jace/SFM/Hawk was a problem but they didn't do anything because New Phyrexia was coming out soon and they wanted to see if that would fix things. You know... by printing Batterskull.

The fact is that FFL is awful at predicting Standard and doesn't even consider Legacy. Banning problem cards is basically the only tool they have to deal with issues. Did they really think Vengevine would break Legacy? Probably not. But probably because they weren't thinking about Legacy. So what could they do to fix it? Wait 2 years for a new card to be added that solved the problem? Of course not. They took drastic action and banned Survival. Survival could probably be stopped by different decks, but Legacy doesn't really work like that. You've got some people who have little choice of what deck to make and others who just build the best deck. Why play non-Survival when you could just play Survival and beat everyone who wasn't playing Survival.

It's that way with Brainstorm now. Even if there is a deck that beats Brainstorm, it's just easier/better to play Brainstorm yourself and beat the non-Brainstorm decks and play MTG against the Brainstorm decks.

I'm sure most people here don't believe it, but Standard is far more interesting than Legacy right now. In Standard I can play quite a few different decks depending on the meta. In Legacy, you play Brainstorm or save your entry fee money.

[Fossil4182]

Okay, so this is a merely quantitative distinction? Can we get rough guidelines on where dominance turns into oppression? I mean traditionally in strategic terms, "dominance" denotes that no other strategy actually makes sense.

That's why I defined dominance and oppressive differently. The way you're interpreting dominance (in the traditional sense) would have it be a synonym for oppressive; its not. Dominance denotes the ability of something to exert influence; inherent to this definition is that others are able to exert influence. Oppressive would mean that others are incapable of exerting influence. If one strategy dominates another (or multiples), then it doesn't mean that other strategies aren't viable. An oppressive strategy would be one that pushes all other strategies out or as you put "no other strategy actually makes sense [to deploy]. Brainstorm is a synergistic card, its not powerful or an engine like Survival of the Fittest, Flash and/or Stoneforge Mystic. Such engines or cards with raw power made playing any other deck a foolish choice. Its difficult to say with certainty whether or not it is foolish to play a deck that does not contain Brainstorm (the reasons are articulated below). Until there is a conclusive way assess the metagame, I'm inclined to leave Brainstorm at a highly influential status.



I mean I am not actually seeing that much variety between most Legacy decks. A significant portion of them are just three color aggro-control buffet, with the actual cards almost identical within colors and blue by far being the most usual core.

This is where you and I have a disagreement about what we see when we look at results. My interpretation of you're comment here is that you look at blue decks and for the most part see Brainstorm.aggro-control.deck. I disagree with that point, but understand you're argument.



Well first off we're not discussing the past six months, we're discussing the past month or so since Innistrad came out. The past six months extends not only before Innistrad but before New Phyrexia- completely irrelevant to the current meta.

Secondly, the diversity of other decks doesn't really matter if those decks don't put up numbers.

It would appear to me that you're reasoning breaks down here.

First, there isn't a reason to limit the discussion of banning a card to the very current metagame. As justification for this viewpoint, the reasons articulated by WotC for banning Mystical Tutor included its role past decks that were oppressive (Flash). Looking at the trends over time seems to be a factor when determining whether or not a card should or should not be banned. Regardless, even if we assume your framework for evaluating the reasons to ban Brainstorm....

You're responses (to other users) have been that you're position is defensible since you're using data to back up your analysis. However, you're only using data from a four week period to reach your conclusions. That seems like a poor sampling since the metagame has gone under considerable shifts over each of those events and the make up of the top sixteen of each event as looked very different. Even if there has been a larger number of decks that contain Brainstorm, that's not a reason for banning the card because with such a short and evolving metagame, I would find attempts to make accurate predictive analysis (IE that Brainstorm will become oppressive) that would justify a banning difficult to accept. There have been four week periods when Zoo and Merfolk dominated Legacy events, would calls for banning Wild Nacatl or Lord of Atlantis have been justified?

Your analysis also doesn't list or explicitly state where you are getting your data from. If it is from SCG Opens only, then you'd have to account for variables such as the circuit pros (and their legions of netdeckers/subscribers) tendency to favor playing Blue. Such a variable would bias that data set if all the better players were using Blue since they are more likely to finish in the top sixteen. There are also geographical factors to consider as well (IE regional or country based trends).

I've reread SpikeyMikey's post and find a lot of truth in his. WotC has only banned four cards in Legacy (for non power errata/logistical reasons) and three of them have been in the past 24 months. Such a rapid succession of bannings along with the printing of a lot of archetype defining cards (including Mental Misstep) really hasn't allowed the metagame to stabilize into something that can be approached and changed via deck designing.

I also think inherent to the games structure is the issue that Blue, as a color, does what you want to be doing better than any other color: library manipulation, card drawing/advantage, and disruption (counterspells).

[John Cox]

I wrote a Qbasic Program that will fix this. Copy the following in to a text editor and compile in QBasic.

10 What decks are you talking about when you say blue?
20 will they be more prevalent in the meta or less prevalent in the meta
30
40 what deck do you expect to see get better?
50 will they be more prevalent in the meta or less prevalent in the meta
60
70 how do those decks interact with combo?
80
90 Based on 70 what presence do you see for combo?
100 How will players react?
110 If 90 = neg then go to 10

[Vacrix]

Because the blue cards aren't the high-stakes cards, generally. It's hard to think of a more efficient blue hoser than REB, but it's not going to hit a Knight or a Stoneforge or a Tombstalker, nor Deed nor GSZ or whatever.

Like blue doesn't primarily make decks work, it makes decks work much more efficiently with counter backup.

The only cards that are pretty decent at hitting the things blue is doing most of the time, even more so in combo decks, are discard, which has massive weaknesses, and counters, which is reserved for the color itself.

If they let decent counters bleed out a bit (since blue apparently gets Nacatl, why not), and print some better color heavy spells, and more nonbasic hosers it might balance out a bit, but it's a risky proposition and it's easier to just ban Brainstorm.
But it will just get replaced by another cantrip. I doubt everyone is going to stop playing blue just because Brainstorm is gone, especially if everyone jumps on the storm combo wagon, anticipating less blue and more non-blue aggro.

I agree about discard. I'd really prefer for the black discard/aggro archetype to reemerge, and they could facilitate that.

Then again, I think most of the problem is power creep that developed because WotC didn't want to ban Tarmogoyf. It fucked up aggro in Legacy because the powercreep curve in creatures had to sky rocket to match up to Goyf... and then cards like SFM and KotR were getting played WITH Goyf instead of being matched against it. Well what the fuck can they do now then to remedy the situation? I see most creatures becoming outdated in the coming years for that reason unless they print some new utility creatures. Ponder these...

Vines (G)(G)
Creature - Wall
At the end of your turn, if you haven't played a basic forest, sacrifice Vines.
Creatures with power or toughness greater than the number of lands you control can't attack you.
0/4

iAnti-Goyf! (B)
Creature - lol
Creatures with conditional P/T have a P/T of 0/0 instead.
1/1

Diablo III Monk 1(R)
Creature - Monk
Monk's */* is equal to the number of red instants in your graveyard.
*/*

[Kanti]

hur dur ban fetchlands. Every deck in legacy has fetchlands save Folk (lol they don't run Brainstorm either, go figure) and they need to be banned!!!

Or not.

[dontbiteitholmes]

I mean you'd have to print like a dozen new cards to be Legacy playable all at once, without any of them being actually busted.

It's an awful idea, way harder than just nuking a problem blue card or two.

I think Legacy is fine right now. Blue is slightly stronger than I'd like ideally but it's not so much that its broken as it is just as consistent and good as it's always been and most of the players who are going to win anyways are already playing it. So yeah, blue is the best color, real shocker there.

Ironically blue has been the best color since the printing of Goyf, go figure. Part of the "problem" is that the best Green, White, Red, and Black cards are infinitely splashable. You can get huge fatties (Goyf), the best Removal (Swords/Path), the best burn (Bolt), and the best discard/tempo draw (Thoughtsieze, Confidant) for the simple investment of a couple dual lands of whatever color. To get the best blue effect you want Force of Will and you have to run at least 14-15 blue cards before you can even think about adding Force to your deck. Every other colors best effect is either a 1 or 2 cmc card with one colored mana. Force means you NEED to play blue to have access to it and you can still splash for the best of any other color. As long as you are playing blue, why the hell not play Brainstorm. It's a really good card, it filters, it's blue, and it cantrips.

If blue couldn't splash for every other colors HALL OF FAME easily but not vice versa we would see much less blue. Since that is not the case don't blame it on Brainstorm. We don't need less Brainstorm, we need better reasons to NOT play blue. Where's the love for Red lately WotC? They need to stop printing cards that are so easily splashable and at the same time so cheap and so powerful. Pick 2 out of 3 and I usually don't care but bolded for emphasis having so many cards that are undercosted, retardedly splashable, AND extremely powerful, all 3 at the same time, is a recipe for disaster. If you take away Brainstorm blue is still the best color because it can splash for any other colors bombs and still have access to Force of Will. No one ever died from getting Brainstormed to death, it's the fact the brainstorm is digging up shit the blue mage has no business having access to so easily that is the real problem.

The format is fine now. Non-blue decks are good and whether Brainstorm gets banned or not there are plenty of cards that need to get printed to make to format more healthy.

[John Cox]

I think Legacy is fine right now. Blue is slightly stronger than I'd like ideally but it's not so much that its broken ...
To get the best blue effect you want Force of Will and you have to run at least 14-15 blue cards before you can even think about adding Force to your deck. Every other colors best effect is either a 1 or 2 cmc card with one colored mana. Force means you NEED to play blue to have access to it and you can still splash for the best of any other color. As long as you are playing blue, why the hell not play Brainstorm. It's a really good card, it filters, it's blue, and it cantrips....

The format is fine now. Non-blue decks are good and whether Brainstorm gets banned or not there are plenty of cards that need to get printed to make to format more healthy.
I'd like to pick up on the fact that if there is anything making blue dominant it's force of will. It's the reason Bant and stoneforge are blue decks and not a green or white, -blue needs 18 cards minimum to support force of will. Brainstorm is just a casualty.

[Parax]

As far as Brainstorm+ SCM the way i see it, is i have a plethora of things in your bag of tricks (GY) that why would you roll the dice for a possibility of grabbing something useful at that moment? I'm not really getting this Brainstorm makes SCM better thing.

Beside the fact that if you are playing Brainstorm and SCM then you should be playing Big Daddy Jace which costs 1 more colorless than SCM and Brainstorm and you get *gasp* "unlimited brainstorms" plus more goody stuff.

Yes, Brainstorm and Delver works well together. But i think the people who are complaining about how it "sets up delver to be 3/2" is bollocks. Of those of you, who are complaining about it, how many actually play blue and Brainstorm? And how many of you actually play brainstrom correctly? In a nut shell, the best time to brainstorm is, as late as possible, brainstorming on turn 2 just to get a 3/2 that frankly probably will be a 3/2 in a turn or two anyways, really is not worth it.

Now i'm sure you guys are tired of hearing from me, so theres my 2 cents.

[dontbiteitholmes]

I'd like to pick up on the fact that if there is anything making blue dominant it's force of will. It's the reason Bant and stoneforge are blue decks and not a green or white, -blue needs 18 cards minimum to support force of will. Brainstorm is just a casualty.

It's not even Force of Will that makes blue dominant. It's the fact that you can splash any other colors best cards playing blue but you can't splash blues best effect playing other colors. Therefore more decks that play blue are going to be at least half blue out of necessity if they run Force. That actually brings up a really smart answer to the problem of stupid splashable creatures that just came to me. If they were to make Mystic or Bob or Swords level cards today they could always throw in an alt casting cost if you can reveal a card of the same color from your hand. Like Stoneforge Mystic 2.0 costs WW3, if you reveal a white card from your hand as you cast him you may pay 2W less. Either way they need to cut this splashable 2cmc bomb shit out or they are going to dig themselves into a developmental hole they will never be able to get out of.

[ddt15]

they need to cut this splashable 2cmc bomb shit out or they are going to dig themselves into a developmental hole they will never be able to get out of.

/thread

[DragoFireheart]

It's not even Force of Will that makes blue dominant. It's the fact that you can splash any other colors best cards playing blue but you can't splash blues best effect playing other colors. Therefore more decks that play blue are going to be at least half blue out of necessity if they run Force. That actually brings up a really smart answer to the problem of stupid splashable creatures that just came to me. If they were to make Mystic or Bob or Swords level cards today they could always throw in an alt casting cost if you can reveal a card of the same color from your hand. Like Stoneforge Mystic 2.0 costs WW3, if you reveal a white card from your hand as you cast him you may pay 2W less. Either way they need to cut this splashable 2cmc bomb shit out or they are going to dig themselves into a developmental hole they will never be able to get out of.


http://cdn2.hark.com/images/000/004/438/4438/original.0


The fact that the best cards are easily splashable is why blue decks are played so much. Between their 1 color costs and duals, it's a no brainier. Banning brainstorm is not going to fix this problem. All it will do is weaken the control core. How much? It's not known, but I don't think it will be enough to make non-blue decks more viable. You would have to ban many more blue cards to make blue weak enough that non-blue is blatantly better.

Meanwhile, you're pissing of everyone that likes/loves brainstorm and risking non-blue combo decks going out of control.

[Asthereal]

Let's just think about two things:
- Why?
- What if?

Why?
1. Brainstorm is overpowered, it's the best card in Legacy by far.
2. Brainstorm makes blue duals and fetch get way too expensive, because since Brainstorm is so good, we all want to play it and therefor need u-duals and fetch.
3. Brainstorm makes the format one-sided.

About those arguments:
1. Yes, it is that good. But does it make decks without it unplayably bad? No. And you can splash it into most decks (like in blue Zoo and so on).
2. Yes, personally I think this is a major concern. Legacy staple prices have gone through the roof, and u-duals are at the top of the price list.
3. No. The format has many playable decks and strategies. Yes, many of them include Brainstorm as a four-of, but still one can go aggro with Zoo, Goblins, Burn, Maverick, Dark Horizons and so on, or midrange with Merfolk, Tempo Thresh, Bant, slower Rock decks, and so on, or heavy control with UW Stoneblade or BUG Still, and next to that we have three Tendrils combo decks, Belcher, SpiralTide, Show&Tell, Hive Mind, Reanimator and Dredge. It doesn't get much more diverse than that.

What if Brainstorm were banned?

1. The format loses its best card. So another card becomes the best card in Legacy. Should we ban that one too, until we lose all proper cards in the format? My guess is that the best card aside Brainstorm is Force of Will, so let's focus on a meta without Brainstorm but with Force as its best card.
2. Force of Will is also blue, so many people will still want to play blue. Blue duals will still be extremely expensive.
3. What happens to the meta is yet unsure, but let's look at the decks:

- Storm combo: Preordain and Sensei's Divining Top will do as replacements for Brainstorm. Storm remains viable.
- Hive Mind, Show&Tell, SpiralTide, Reanimator, Tempo Thresh? Same as for storm decks. Just put in Preordains.
- Blue control decks will not like the banning very much, but they can settle for Sensei's Divining Top, making them even slower than they already were.
- The rest will not care too much for the banning.

So:
Do I see a major meta shift coming up after the banning of Brainstorm? Nope, not really. Will the format be more balanced? Nah, that might not even be possible. Do I see prices for duals and fetch going down? Also no.

Reasons to keep Brainstorm in the format:
1. We like it.
2. It divides good players from bad ones.
3. We want as little cards on the banning list as possible.
All reasons are valid, and since our goals for banning Brainstorm fail, we should not ban it.

Banning Brainstorm will make sense if we ban other stuff as well, but that would really mess up the meta is we have it, and since it is already very diverse, I don't see why we should try that.

[Misplayer]

If you haven't seen these suspects in your meta yet, don't worry you'll get there.


Is the problem that Brainstorm/blue is being widely played, or that it's dominating the format (i.e. oppressing other strategies, as Fossil has said)? There is a difference. The former is something that is unreasonable to try to control, the latter would represent a problem with the format.

Granted, I don't have a tremendous knowledge of all matchups, but I'm still not sure which archetypes are being pushed out of the format because of the presence of Brainstorm. If someone could identify those, that would help me understand the rationale behind the call for a ban.

My conjecture is that just because most of the players have decided to play Brainstorm, doesn't mean that it is dominating the format. Just look at the poll results: 77% of over 300 Legacy enthusiasts (presumably) voted "No", which I interpret to mean that they either like playing with Brainstorm, don't mind playing against Brainstorm, or don't think it is doing harm to the format.


Part of the "problem" is that the best Green, White, Red, and Black cards are infinitely splashable.

Great post. Even with all the tremendously powerful cards blue has access to, mono-blue is still not viable (the same is true for any color). But most of the bombs are based in blue, and you can just splash for the rest (usually beaters and removal). Brainstorm just happens to be one of those bombs - possibly the most powerful because it helps you find the other overpowered cards that are situationally most relevant.

@Drago - No disrepect intended, but can you please stop being the perm of this thread? You're probably hurting the anti-ban position more than you're helping it by being so abrasive.

[death]

Is the problem that Brainstorm/blue is being widely played, or that it's dominating the format (i.e. oppressing other strategies, as Fossil has said)? There is a difference. The former is something that is unreasonable to try to control, the latter would represent a problem with the format.

Granted, I don't have a tremendous knowledge of all matchups, but I'm still not sure which archetypes are being pushed out of the format because of the presence of Brainstorm. If someone could identify those, that would help me understand the rationale behind the call for a ban.

This just in. The updated top tier decks, seems that Maverick has fallen to 3rd place as reports kept pouring in.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2126/octtier2.png

The table below (taken 3 days ago) shows the difference and is posted for comparison:

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/241/octtier.png

I think the problem would arise when people start going "all in" with Maverick versus blue and fail or if Maverick falls out of flavor, blue tempo/control decks are going to eat a big chunk off that chart.

Combo and Aggro decks are being pushed out.


Before Snapcaster Mage and Mental Misstep everyone agreed the format was more or less balanced. The problem now is more and more good blue spells are being printed. A combo deck for example now has near zero chance of winning against 8x Spell Snare 8x Spell Pierce 8x Stifle 8x Flusterstorm 8x Surgical Extraction 8x Extirpate 8x Thoughtseize 8x Brainstorm + Force of Will. For an aggro comparison, replace those with 8x StP, 8x PtE, 8x Lightning Bolt, Fire//Ice, Dismember, Ghastly Demise etc. etc..

I can't say a format is diverse when almost every blue deck is an iteration of the following cards:
4 Brainstorm
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge Mystic
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Snare

...

But when games hinges on card X (2 crappy cards + fetchland), casting X = 3 new cards, this causes problems. Same as when a top deck card X yields a card that is 3 cards more deep at instant speed FTW = busted. We've seen a lot of games go like that. This is why Brainstorm is comparable to the Vintage card Ancestral Recall and its consistency makes non-blue an inferior choice.

Brainstorm is unfair because it puts a blue deck 3 turns ahead of its competitor if it is non-blue. Where Mirri's Guile and Sylvan Library pales in comparison.

[brattin]

Embarrassingly, I don't think either of you are actually children.

Calling each other children is a poor insult, as I know some startlingly mature children.

On topic, someone said Brainstorm isn't the problem, the color pie is the problem. This makes sense to me. Blue is the counterspell color. People like to play counterspells. Force of Will is the best available counterspell, and it requires a number of blue cards to play effectively. Brainstorm is practically universally applicable, and blue, so if you're going to play Force of Will you should probably be playing Brainstorm in most cases. Snapcaster Mage is at least pretty good, and more importantly is a new toy so lots of people want to play it right now.

People will always play blue when they want to counter things. People are playing blue more now than usual because they want to play snapcaster mages, because they think they need blue to stop storm combo, and because everyone is copying SCG's tournament results.

Wizards could print counterspells in another color, but it wouldn't substantively change anything.

[GGoober]

@drago, it is very easy to deal with such comments, just ignore it, instead of restating it constantly in every subsequent post you make (even more so when the mods have *snipped it off IBA). Don't bring unnecessary drama, this is a discussion thread. As much as I feel that there is really nothing to discuss about since we have these threads cropping up frequently every few weeks, but I would rather read a few pages knowing there are opinions/contents rather than flame wars. Thanks.

The issue with why we get these threads every few week is because people fail to recognize why blue is naturally going to be a strong color in legacy. It better be, because if it wasn't then combo would be, and if they continue to ban combo and blue is somewhat nerfed, then the format is exactly the State of Modern i.e. aggro decks with the super fast combo that no one can deal with until they ban even more cards. If you can make an argument for banning brainstorm, or any other blue card that isn't enabling engines the way Flash/Survival did, then be prepared to expect the meta to shift much heavily.

People whine about blue, but the arguments are fair if you're considering non-eternal formats. In an eternal format, you really would like to see all pillars of combo/aggro/control being represented. Take the case of Vintage. The format is even more blue-dominant because blue is the ONLY color that can save you against combo (and all control decks in Vintage are combo-control decks in that sense) or even MUD. Legacy is in fact pretty healthy and I know the format is increasingly popular so I kind of understand and tolerate these chicken little threads every once in awhile because people don't understand why blue needs to be the glue of the format. People keep saying that blue should be nerfed to bring other decks up. I fully agree with this statement because I would like all colors/decks to be strong in the format, but stating such a statement is simply ignoring how impossible it could be in an eternal format. The issue is further compounded and made worse by the fact that WotC designers like to adhere to the color pie i.e. blue will continue to have cards with card advantage, draw, fixing, counterspell, library/hand manipulation. Guess what, these features so happen to be critically important in eteranl formats, not so much in non-eternal formats.

[Misplayer]

This just in. The updated top tier decks, seems that Maverick has fallen to 3rd place as reports kept pouring in.


Right, and I think we need to temper the conclusions that we're drawing from top 8/16s. Popularity <> format dominance. I think it's a reasonable assumption that if more people are playing a certain deck (e.g. Ugr Tempo), it will show up more frequently in this data. If all the Rock/Junk players switched with all the Ugr Tempo players, don't you think you'd see Rock/Junk at the top of the list or close to it? Snapcaster decks are just the flavor of the month.

Look at other months from this year. Look at May, good thing they nerfed Merfolk right? That deck is a damn menace. Yeah, Batterskull helped a lot, but NPH also gave Merfolk Dismember, which addressed one of the deck's biggest weaknesses.

Look at April, Blue control / aggrocontrol decks are all down below Affinity. Do you really think Snapcaster + [Batterskull or Delver] have made all those other strategies obselete? Zoo was in the Top 16 at the last SCG event, Maverick is still everywhere, The Rock just placed 2nd at the Jupiter event last week, etc. Those decks are still good. People aren't playing them for whatever reason (like netdecking SCG decks). If the graph looks like that for 3 consecutive months, then I'd concede there's a real problem.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Why?
2. Brainstorm makes blue duals and fetch get way too expensive, because since Brainstorm is so good, we all want to play it and therefor need u-duals and fetch.


That's complete bullshit. Banning cards isn't going to make this format cheap and Brainstorm sure as hell isn't what's responsible for the price.

edit: oh I guess you were kind of disagreeing with it too :/




Brainstorm is unfair because it puts a blue deck 3 turns ahead of its competitor if it is non-blue. Where Mirri's Guile and Sylvan Library pales in comparison.

This is not true.

So does Gitaxian Probe put you 1 turn ahead of your competitor? That card is a 0-mana time walk based on your analysis. Why isn't every deck ever playing it?

[death]

Because not every 60-card deck has a slot for it? Because draw 3 is infinitely better than draw 1. Not every deck will profit from playing Probe, it's only profitable in the right deck. I play it in ANT and ZeRO fwiw ;)

[Octopusman]

Probe does not put you ahead at all. You simply draw the card you would have drawn had you not drawn probe.

Side effects: You trade 2 life or pay U to see opponents hand & you can draw a card that you put on the top of your library at a time that is different from your draw step.

[Xero]

I hardly play anymore, so I'll abstain on the poll. That having been said, I have to ask something of the anti-banning crow-again I have no agenda here.

Is Brainstorm such a staple of the format, that there is no amount of format penetration that would lead you to believe it should be banned? For example, if you knew 90% of all Legacy Top 8's forever would play 4x Brainstorm, would it still not be bannable?

[Admiral_Arzar]

Is Brainstorm such a staple of the format, that there is no amount of format penetration that would lead you to believe it should be banned? For example, if you knew 90% of all Legacy Top 8's forever would play 4x Brainstorm, would it still not be bannable?

An interesting question - I think that the majority of the pro-Brainstorm crowd don't really care about the numbers involved - there is a rather huge double standard involving cards like Brainstorm. In the same vein, if we were to replace Brainstorm with a more controversial pillar of Legacy - for example, Lion's Eye Diamond - how would this conversation be going? If the last 10 SCG open winners all played 4 LED (rather than 4 BS, which is the case)...Personally, I think there would have been an emergency banning already in that case.

[catmint]

I hardly play anymore, so I'll abstain on the poll. That having been said, I have to ask something of the anti-banning crow-again I have no agenda here.

Is Brainstorm such a staple of the format, that there is no amount of format penetration that would lead you to believe it should be banned? For example, if you knew 90% of all Legacy Top 8's forever would play 4x Brainstorm, would it still not be bannable?

I'll posted this already in another thread, but I feel the discussion is too much focused on brainstorm. It is about a blue shell to support FoW...

1) The best decks play the best spells from the colors which fit best for a certain strategy/meta.

2) All of those decks need consistency and do not to want to start an uphill battle versus combo. Therefore many decks start with a blue shell and put it what fits their strategy. That is the nature of a format with all duals & fetches available.

3) If it would not be brainstorm it would be the 2nd best filter spell which is put into the blue shell.

4)If the blue shell is weakened to a point where it is not worth to use it -> we have combo fighting combo

[UnderwaterGuy]

I'll posted this already in another thread, but I feel the discussion is too much focused on brainstorm. It is about a blue shell to support FoW...

1) The best decks play the best spells from the colors which fit best for a certain strategy/meta.

2) All of those decks need consistency and do not to want to start an uphill battle versus combo. Therefore many decks start with a blue shell and put it what fits their strategy. That is the nature of a format with all duals & fetches available.

3) If it would not be brainstorm it would be the 2nd best filter spell which is put into the blue shell.

4)If the blue shell is weakened to a point where it is not worth to use it -> we have combo fighting combo

Eloquently put, I completely agree.

[Vacrix]

An interesting question - I think that the majority of the pro-Brainstorm crowd don't really care about the numbers involved - there is a rather huge double standard involving cards like Brainstorm. In the same vein, if we were to replace Brainstorm with a more controversial pillar of Legacy - for example, Lion's Eye Diamond - how would this conversation be going? If the last 10 SCG open winners all played 4 LED (rather than 4 BS, which is the case)...Personally, I think there would have been an emergency banning already in that case.
The difference is LED encourages less interaction than BS does.. and LED is a clear 'do or die' sort of decision. LED works, or it doesn't work, while the decisions that precede and follow BS are far more complex. Its not really an accurate comparison.

[GradStudentGuy]

Brainstorm is fine and is needed to keep the format in check to a degree. Being able to See 3 cards deep for a force of will helps keeps the format honest. Now it could be augured that Snapcatser mage gives blue decks a better ability to sideboard but that is a different argument all together and one that I agree is true. If they are going to ban anything ban the enabler of extra brainstorm abuse (If you can even call it that). Honestly wizards needs to stop printing good blue cards and give other colors there fair share.

[from Cairo]

I don't really have strong feelings on the banning or not of Brainstorm. Removing it from Legacy I certainly feel would have effects, I don't think it would remove Blue's dominance. So with Brainstorm gone, decks evolve and adjust and a different card becomes popular and prevalent. Is that card then banned 6mo down the line? In a few years we've seen Mystical Tutor, Survival of the Fittest and Mental Misstep "dominate" then be banned. Is the plan to just continue to axe the most popular card every 6mo-year? Is this a form of substitution for the lack of rotation in Legacy?

I like the format at the moment, so I don't feel something has to change really, but I think all this talk of bannings makes for an interesting time for Legacy in terms of gauging what's to come.

[DragoFireheart]

At this point I don't even care if it's banned as I'm more bothered by the precedent set my WotC lately: mass bannings. Granted, this was in Modern, but what if similar behavior carries over here? If they are willing to ban Ponder and Preordain in Modern, wouldn't it be possible they would use the same logic for Legacy? If Brainstorm is banned and blue is still "oppressive", then what? Do we even want that sort of precedent set forth (not as if we would have a choice)? We saw what happened in Modern with mass bannings. As others have said, the constant bannings every 6 months makes it hard to create new decks to fight the meta since it's always shifting. The fact that cards have been banned in Legacy so often as of recent is actually doing the exact opposite of what it's intended: stifling the meta. Why try to make a new deck if cards keep getting banned?

[boneclub24]

Why try to make a new deck if cards keep getting banned?

Except with Modern they had a clear goal in mind: No Combo wins before turn 4. And the banned list reflects this (and a few others points that I feel should have happened). Legacy has no such thing as this.

[nwong]

An interesting question - I think that the majority of the pro-Brainstorm crowd don't really care about the numbers involved - there is a rather huge double standard involving cards like Brainstorm. In the same vein, if we were to replace Brainstorm with a more controversial pillar of Legacy - for example, Lion's Eye Diamond - how would this conversation be going? If the last 10 SCG open winners all played 4 LED (rather than 4 BS, which is the case)...Personally, I think there would have been an emergency banning already in that case.

Pretty much this.

Almost all the arguments boil down to "BS is broken but I like to play with it. It also helps stop combo! So let's not ban it".

Here let me try:

LED is broken but I like to play with it. It also stops mindless aggro! So let's not ban it.

I don't really care whether anything happens or not, but I find the double standard ridiculous.

On another note, printing more cheap non-blue combo hate and good non-blue-splashable cards will help. Printing less blue nacatls would help too.

[HokusSchmokus]

What the f is wrong with you guys?I think the guys that voted Pro Brainstorm banning all play combo or dredge. Seriously, Brainstorm is the only reason the the format isn't dominated by Combo or Dredge. The only reason why people can play only 2-3 Extractions to fight Reanimator e.g.
If they ban Brainstorm we might get another combo winter. I for one will be playing Belcher again, and winning with it, because now no one can have a way to search the Force on my turn.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Dredge can't dominate the metagame because if your opponent happens to throw four Crypts in their board you suddenly have a bad matchup.

Combo's dominance has been theorized but I don't see the logic behind it. They also use Brainstorm pretty heavily, they're not at all widely played right now so combo decks becoming maybe 20% of the meta isn't that terrifying, and they don't become any less fragile by banning Brainstorm; rather, it generally has a negative impact on their consistency.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Dredge can't dominate the metagame because if your opponent happens to throw four Crypts in their board you suddenly have a bad matchup.

Combo's dominance has been theorized but I don't see the logic behind it. They also use Brainstorm pretty heavily, they're not at all widely played right now so combo decks becoming maybe 20% of the meta isn't that terrifying, and they don't become any less fragile by banning Brainstorm; rather, it generally has a negative impact on their consistency.

Did you read his post? He said he would play Belcher, that deck does not run Brainstorm and would be pretty seriously helped by Brainstorm's banning.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Did you read his post? He said he would play Belcher, that deck does not run Brainstorm and would be pretty seriously helped by Brainstorm's banning.

Why?

Belcher would still be awful. Even ignoring sideboard cards, Force wouldn't suddenly stop being played. So you have a 30-50% chance of playing against blue each round instead of 60-100%. So what? Those are still bad odds. Let alone anyone throwing down an Elephant Grass or EE or something after you get all your goblins.

[UnderwaterGuy]

oh you're right. I forgot about that meta-defining card, Elephant Grass.

I've made my argument and provided reasoning for it. You've come up with narrow, largely unplayed cards that counter specific decks that I used as examples.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

oh you're right. I forgot about that meta-defining card, Elephant Grass.

I've made my argument and provided reasoning for it. You've come up with narrow, largely unplayed cards that counter specific decks that I used as examples.

Right, I remember when I said,


Belcher can't be good because Elephant Grass.

Oh wait, you're just being a dishonest twat and this is what I actually said:


Why?

Belcher would still be awful. Even ignoring sideboard cards, Force wouldn't suddenly stop being played. So you have a 30-50% chance of playing against blue each round instead of 60-100%. So what? Those are still bad odds. Let alone anyone throwing down an Elephant Grass or EE or something after you get all your goblins.


Infraction issued for insulting other members.
-4eak

[Gheizen64]

oh you're right. I forgot about that meta-defining card, Elephant Grass.

I've made my argument and provided reasoning for it. You've come up with narrow, largely unplayed cards that counter specific decks that I used as examples.

Belcher majorly sucks as it has like a 30% matchup against anything that run blue, including merfolk that doesn't use BS. For belcher to be actually viable it would need literally a format with 0 blue decks in it, and even then it would randomly lose to a lot of things, including T1 revoker, needle, EE and Grass (yes grass is played in enchantress) CotV or T2 Teeg from maverick.

Belcher sucks and stating "Belcher would dominate without BS" is equally silly as saying that Kobold glimpse would. Those decks are terribly inconsistent. Take a look at the combo decks that are actually played, they run either pacts and FoW (SpiralTide, Reanimator) or discard (AnT) or chants effect (TES) or have a secondary win route via aggro (elves). In other words, they're not built to be one-trick ponies. Ah and beside that, Reanimator, Spiraltide and AnT all use BS.

[DragoFireheart]

Dredge can't dominate the metagame because if your opponent happens to throw four Crypts in their board you suddenly have a bad matchup.

-Dredge can easily fight through Crypts. Leyline of the Void is much worse IIRC.



Combo's dominance has been theorized but I don't see the logic behind it. They also use Brainstorm pretty heavily, they're not at all widely played right now so combo decks becoming maybe 20% of the meta isn't that terrifying, and they don't become any less fragile by banning Brainstorm; rather, it generally has a negative impact on their consistency.

-If that is the case then people will be more likely to play faster yet more inconsistent decks like Belcher.

[catmint]

Why?

Belcher would still be awful. Even ignoring sideboard cards, Force wouldn't suddenly stop being played. So you have a 30-50% chance of playing against blue each round instead of 60-100%. So what? Those are still bad odds. Let alone anyone throwing down an Elephant Grass or EE or something after you get all your goblins.

I think without Brainforce the blue shell would be played a lot less. It is just so much harder to fight combo AND aggro/midrange strategies. So why not just play one of those. Since a lot people dismiss the blue shell why should more people play Maverick,... to beat blue. Obvious choice -> More combo

[Vacrix]

-If that is the case then people will be more likely to play faster yet more inconsistent decks like Belcher.
You guys shouldn't be afraid of Belcher if BS gets banned; be afraid of SI. Spanish Inquisition, like Belcher, can only benefit from a weakened blue shell as SI doesn't play Brainstorm, unlike their ANT/TES/FT counterparts. SI will be even faster in context of these other combo decks that will likely slow down a half turn or so because they lose their best cantrip (usually enabling a turn 2 or pushing a turn 1). I don't care either way if Brainstorm gets banned but if it does and we have another combo winter, SI is a pretty good contender to beat a bunch of slower combo decks that lack their best cantrip.

[DragoFireheart]

You guys shouldn't be afraid of Belcher if BS gets banned; be afraid of SI. Spanish Inquisition, like Belcher, can only benefit from a weakened blue shell as SI doesn't play Brainstorm, unlike their ANT/TES/FT counterparts. SI will be even faster in context of these other combo decks that will likely slow down a half turn or so because they lose their best cantrip (usually enabling a turn 2 or pushing a turn 1). I don't care either way if Brainstorm gets banned but if it does and we have another combo winter, SI is a pretty good contender to beat a bunch of slower combo decks that lack their best cantrip.

Oh yeah, forgot about SI. Hehe, that thing is quite a bit worse.