A brief but instructive analysis of Brainstorm's performance in SCG Opens

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

And I'm using SCG Opens because they're a database that's easily available of all large tournaments, even though I think they do tend to have an echo chamber effect. I think this is a crowd that tends to favor blue decks innately before actual strength is taken into account- Zoo has been very good at a number of points in the past year, for instance, but I've seen is consistently labeled as "non-interactive," whatever the fuck that means.

As I noted in the other thread, there have been 5 SCG Legacy Opens since Innistrad became legal, which means 80 decks have top 16'd, 40 have top 8'd, 20 have top 4'd and 10 have top 2'd. And obviously five have won but that's not as important here as we'll get to in a second.

So briefly crunching the numbers, the % of decks in each grouping that run Brainstorm go like this;

16: 50 of 80 for 62.5%
8: 28 of 40 for 70%
4: 18 of 20 for 90%
2: 10 of 10 for 100%

And the winners were also obviously all running Brainstorm.

We can contrast this with the tendency over the Mental Misstep era, where blue was still highly played and probably overrepresented, but not actually as clearly good in its performances (some decklists seem to be missing from the SCG database so the numbers are slightly wonky;)

Top 16s: 102 out of 180 ran Brainstorm, or 56.67%
Top 8s: 60 out of 92 ran Brainstorm, or 65.22%
Top 4s: 34 out of 47 ran Brainstorm, or 72.34%
Top 2s: 18 out of 24 ran Brainstorm, or 75%
Winners: 9 out of 13 ran Brainstorm, or 69.23%

The top 8 weens out a fair number of non-Brainstorm decks in both sets, but after that it roughly stabilized over the Mental Misstep era, with slightly over two thirds of the top decks in each bracket running Brainstorm and a third not (although it bears mentioning that 3 of the 4 winning decks over this period that were not running Brainstorm were Dredge decks.)

But supposing even two thirds dominance is healthy, we see a marked contrast in the behavior of the blue decks in recent tournaments, where at every single stage the number of decks not running Brainstorm-based decks is weened down. If we look at a series of pie charts we can literally see the Brainstorm decks gobbling up the others;

http://i.imgur.com/4k2gH.png

http://i.imgur.com/3brzf.png

http://i.imgur.com/ZKvE3.png

http://i.imgur.com/4kBBj.png

Quick edit:

Since it might be misleading to include only the dataset from the Misstep era, since that period warranted bannings in Wizards view, I'm including the relatively quiet period between the banning of Survival and the printing of Mental Misstep:

Top 16s are: 81 of 175 running Brainstorm, or 46.29%
Top 8s are: 34 of 88 running Brainstorm, or 38.64%
Top 4s are: 20 of 44 running Brainstorm, or 45.45%
Top 2s are: 10 of 22 running Brainstorm, or 45.45%
Winning decks are: 6 of 11 running Brainstorm, or 54.55%

Here's how the three metas look on top of one another;

http://i.imgur.com/M0us1.jpg

[swoop]

Nice, got any more pies?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Nice, got any more pies?

Yes, actually.

http://i.imgur.com/Ovzov.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/21DsW.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BOWY9.jpg

[SpikeyMikey]

IBA: Thanks for the detailed analysis. That's a lot of work and while I doubt that you'll see many people voice thanks for it, it's important that we have this sort of information. Do you have numbers on overall metagame saturation of Brainstorm?

As you mentioned, SCG Opens are subject to some feedback. I would also argue that the field for each SCG is heavily regionalized. The first SCG Open I went to this year was heavy with tribal; I played Fish the first 2 rounds and there were multiple Goblins in the T8 with a Goblins deck winning the whole thing. The next SCG Open I played was a month later and tribal was almost non-existent. Still, as you mentioned, SCG Opens are the best data available for high level play and as such, this data has to be respected.

However, 5 tournaments is a relatively small sample set. It's not difficult for the results to be skewed even beyond the normal blue-bias of competitive players. Furthermore, you don't show any link to causation. The correlation is interesting and certainly suggestive, but it makes poor evidence without first ensuring that other metrics have remained the same or that the change in those metrics has caused Brainstorm to become a problem.

I'm still advocating far more time for the meta to settle as well as more data and better theorycrafting.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Thanks.

Well I'm certainly not advocating an emergency banning, so there will have to be some time. But I think people ought to keep an eye on this because I think we'll see more data confirming this trend. There will probably be some deck in the next few months that either places first or second and doesn't run Brainstorm, so we can notch it down from a hundred, but having been a blue skeptic for quite a while I'm legitimately terrified of Delver and its mischief, and I think it and to a lesser extent Snapcaster are pushing the color over the edge into actual strategic dominance, in the very real sense of that term.

[SpikeyMikey]

From a historical perspective, I expect to see Brainstorm usage dip eventually, probably in the next 3-5 months.

For a long time in T1, the general consensus was that Keeper was the best deck and that as more sets were printed it got better. The reasoning behind this seemed relatively sound. Keeper ran 5 colors and a host of tutoring, allowing it to run the best spells printed in any color as well as giving it massive flexibility. If green got a good card in set X, Keeper got a good card. If red got a good card in set Y, Keeper got a good card. It was inevitable, the thinking ran, that one day, Keeper would be the only viable option.

Of course, as you and I are both aware, Vintage is not dominated by Keeper. In fact, control in general has seen next to no play in Vintage since the advent of Mirrodin. Landstill is currently making a comeback in the format, but the idea of a flexible 5-color control running a host of answers to everything is about as alive and well as Amy Winehouse. So what happened that took this deck from tier 1 to unplayable? Simple; strategies became more condensed, more consistent and more broken. In order to compete, Keeper had to streamline. First it went from 5 colors to 4, generally cutting green. Then red was cut, streamlining the deck down to 3 colors. Morphling was replaced with Exalted Angel. Angel was less effective as a late-game control creature, but it came down earlier and alleviated pressure from Workshop aggro decks better than Superman did. Eventually, Control Slaver became the de facto top control deck as it had a more explosive gameplan.

There is, has always been and will remain a balance between power and consistency. A year ago, the top players were advocating that you should be playing the most broken strategies possible. Show and Tell, Tendrils of Agony, Natural Order. If you weren't playing these, the popular voice went, you were doing it wrong. That and "play more (basic) lands" were the two biggest points being advocated by internet talking heads and therefore the most discussed points on various message boards. Now, the 3 biggest decks in the metagame are all eminently fair. 2 run land counts in the high teens. It's not that what is fundamentally good has changed, it's simply that public perception has changed. Eventually, people will realize that Brainstorm/Snapcaster/Delver are all highly overrated and the metagame will swing back towards more land-heavy decks with more threats and less card selection.

There is a point at which more selection is useless. Would you play a deck with 20 Brainstorms, 10 Snapcasters, 10 Lightning Bolts? Probably not. Your threat density is too low. And yet the combination of those 3 cards is considered powerful in the current metagame because it applies so much reach. But the Brainstorm worshippers seem to think that Brainstorming as often as possible is the key to winning. Silly, when you think about it, since each Brainstorm after the first is significantly less useful.

Edit: Of course, I would like to point out that analogies are even less "facts" than correlations. So take my prediction with a grain of salt. But I subscribe to the theory that while smarter than average people, Magic players are still, generally speaking, pretty stupid.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If Brainstorm were merely popular, we would expect to see its penetration of the different placements stay roughly level, or even decrease. The amounts that penetration increases at each level is generally going to be a good indicator of how good the card actually is. And the numbers indicate that Brainstorm was always pretty good (no surprise), and got a shit-ton better since Innistrad came out.

[Richard Cheese]

Would be interesting to see other cards the top decks have in common besides Brainstorm.

[Admiral_Arzar]

If Brainstorm were merely popular, we would expect to see its penetration of the different placements stay roughly level, or even decrease. The amounts that penetration increases at each level is generally going to be a good indicator of how good the card actually is. And the numbers indicate that Brainstorm was always pretty good (no surprise), and got a shit-ton better since Innistrad came out.

Nice work IBA. I'm curious as to how all the blue apologists on this site attempt to explain away hard data. As was started earlier, I wonder if it's possible to get metagame numbers for all decks? Another thing that would be interesting is the post-mystical, pre-survival dominance era.

[CorpT]

If Brainstorm were merely popular, we would expect to see its penetration of the different placements stay roughly level, or even decrease. The amounts that penetration increases at each level is generally going to be a good indicator of how good the card actually is. And the numbers indicate that Brainstorm was always pretty good (no surprise), and got a shit-ton better since Innistrad came out.

I think it might be more accurate to say that Brainstorm fueled decks got better since Innistrad. Skeptics will point out that you rarely Snap back a Brainstorm. And that's true. But what they're missing is that Brainstorm gets you to that Sword and Snap. And when Brainstorm does that and you get two removals and a blocker out of one card... that's where the power is. It doesn't matter that you're not actually snapping back a Brainstorm. Brainstorm is what got you to the Sword or Snap.

[Gheizen64]

WotC complain about the format being "too blue" and ban misstep for it. Then print in the latest years JTMS, Delver, Snapcaster, Spell pierce, Flusterstorm.

Something's fishy...

Thanks for the work iba, always good to see someone waste a bit of his time for this format.

[Sims]

Thanks for the work iba, always good to see someone waste a bit of his time for this format.

Jack has certainly spent a lot of time in this format over the years, and I don't consider any of it wasted, considering the contributions he and his playgroup have made to the format and this site.

Thank you for the data, IBA. I echo the sentiment that I'd like to see the number crunch of what the most popular cards actually are (though as I recall the top 3 end up being Brainstorm, Force of Will, and probably Polluted Delta,) as well as a number crunch from the MM and Survival eras... I'm not asking anyone to do it though, it's a lot of work and i'm sure as hell too lazy to do it so I'd never put that on someone elses shoulders... but it would be interesting data.

[Esper3k]

I'd be curious how the breakdown works for other things like Force of Will as well.

[Finn]

I can't understand why they printed Delver.

[JACO]

Jack, those are some sweet graphs! Now can you make the exact same pie charts with the following cards:
Wasteland
Force of Will
Island

I'm being serious.

[catmint]

I don't understand why you put all that work in pointing out a very obvious thing and missing out the actual point.

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 and would show up in your data.

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

[Admiral_Arzar]

I don't understand why you put all that work in pointing out a very obvious thing and missing out the actual point.

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 and would show up in your data.

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

All these points are basically irrelevant to this thread. I'm going to respond to point #4 however. In that case, you simply don't realize that Brainstorm is more integral to combo decks than it is to blue decks.


Jack, those are some sweet graphs! Now can you make the exact same pie charts with the following cards:
Wasteland
Force of Will
Island

I'm being serious.

That would be very interesting.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

I can't understand why they printed Delver.

Because either Wizards doesn't care about Legacy or it wants to actively kill Legacy. Pick one.

[catmint]

All these points are basically irrelevant to this thread. I'm going to respond to point #4 however. In that case, you simply don't realize that Brainstorm is more integral to combo decks than it is to blue decks.

That would be very interesting.

With my statement I am trying to say that this thread is pointless. Showing that the best card of the blue shell is in all the blue decks and that blue shells dominate is not a new finding. We all know that.

Also I am trying to say that it is not about the actual card Brainstorm, but about the most powerful filter effect of the blue shell... ergo pretty pointless information.

concerning brainstorm beeing more important to combo than than to control aggro/control. I disagree: You will also find a lot of combo decks in modern and the pure combo deck "belcher" does not need it.

[Koby]

I can't understand why they printed Delver.

I don't understand it either, but I stopped caring about them actually making effort to project there's balance.

Blue will be Blue, even if it means that other colors will atrophy.

[SpikeyMikey]

Nice work IBA. I'm curious as to how all the blue apologists on this site attempt to explain away hard data. As was started earlier, I wonder if it's possible to get metagame numbers for all decks? Another thing that would be interesting is the post-mystical, pre-survival dominance era.

I don't know that I'm exactly a blue apologist. I've always been primarily a Rock player, even before there was a Rock. BGW midrange just naturally suits me. However, as I said in my earlier post here, correlation is not causation. It's suggestive, unquestionably, but 5 data points in a game with nearly infinite potential data points is nowhere near enough evidence for me to be convinced. And since, as I said earlier, the flavor of the quarter theory is a complete 180 from what it was not even a year ago, I'm not convinced by the argument that more selection effects are the correct path for any given deck.

What I am convinced of and have been convinced of for some time is that people are incredibly slow to innovate. If a deck does well for several weeks, people will adopt that deck, but they will not change to play decks with better matchups against that deck. If a deck is not analagous to an existing deck, people will take forever to adopt it. It took months for Vengevival to be adopted heavily and then, once it was, the different variations, from the original UG to the GW and Bant versions and even the BG Ooze version, were all adopted within a matter of weeks.

I've said this a number of times in a number of threads, what you are seeing isn't a higher than normal amount of Brainstorm, it's a higher than normal amount of Canadian Thresh. But Canadian Thresh is a glass cannon deck. I expect it to take longer to fall out of favor than Hive Mind or Spiral Tide did because it's a tempo deck, a far more popular style of deck than combo, but it will fall out of favor and then you'll see the number of Brainstorms played go down.

[soltakar]

I appreciate the work that you put into collecting this data, but I'm afraid that you've failed to prove your point (I'm assuming that you're attempting to prove that Brainstorm needs to be banned, which is based upon your multiple posts on the subject of late). While you've shown that decks containing Brainstorm have done better as of late, this does not prove that Brainstorm is the root cause of the performances.

Looking at all three sets of data, it can be argued that Brainstorm is in fact not the cause of the increase in performance. The period of time before Mental had decks containing Brainstorm doing worse than anytime after. At this time decks containing Brainstorm performed at an "acceptable" level. The printing of Mental Misstep, and now Snapcaster and Delver, have pushed the total number of decks containing Brainstorm into "unnacceptable" levels. This suggests that Mental Misstep was, and Snapcaster and/or Delver are now, the root cause to the increase in performance.

While I agree with you that currently decks with Brainstorm are performing too well, I believe that it's too early to call for bans. And if bans are to be called for, the card(s) at the root cause should be the ones to be banned. If you're going to suggest that certain cards are causing certain types of decks to be too powerful you need to prove that the card(s) in question is/are the root cause, and not simply a card in a powerful deck.

[clavio]

I don't really understand why this matters.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I can post the raw numbers later, but here's the data for the entirety of 2011. Most of these cards haven't been played enough in the past month for the numbers for those to be reliable, although I can do them if people really want. The only reason we can get a rough guess of how Brainstorm performs within the top decks since Innistrad is that it's so ridiculously played right now.

Also I forgot to label the first three on the X/Y axis but it's the same thing as before.

http://i.imgur.com/7MLwP.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Rs75Q.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/33tze.jpg

And color performance generally:

http://i.imgur.com/HX3le.jpg

Black has a weird tendency to be mound shaped, maybe it's just easier to make play mistakes with black decks, which shows as time wears on? Conversely red tends to finish strong which likewise might be attributed to either less play decisions or fewer games going to time, allowing the red mage to increase performance.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Also can people stop saying that blue decks would just switch Brainstorm out for Ponder? I mean first of all that's not how deckbuilding works, and second of all so what? That would drastically reduce their power level which is the stated aim. Ponder is much worse than Brainstorm.

[Koby]

I would say otherwise, that Red performs better in the Finals because precisely of the higher concentration of Blue decks. There has to be a strong correlation between Red and Blue performing well at the end.

[DragoFireheart]

http://i.imgur.com/M0us1.jpg

It's pretty obvious that the problem isn't Brainstorm. It's the printing of these two cards:

Snapcaster Mage
Delver of Secrets


Of course you are going to see more blue decks with brainstorm. They want to play these two overpowered creatures. A 3/2 flier for U and a card that lets you flash back cheap instants are pretty powerful. I have no clue who in WotC decided that Delver was a good idea, but whomever it was clearly didn't give a crap about Legacy.



Also can people stop saying that blue decks would just switch Brainstorm out for Ponder? I mean first of all that's not how deckbuilding works, and second of all so what? That would drastically reduce their power level which is the stated aim. Ponder is much worse than Brainstorm.

Why would we blue players stop saying that? It's the natural step in testing out a new card to replace brainstorm. If we want a cantrip that can dig, Ponder is the next logical step. Banning Brainstorm isn't the correct choice because, as your data shows, brainstorm was fine before the printing of Delver and Snappy. It's clear that those two cards are the problem. Check the decks that are running brainstorms in the post-MMS meta: nearly every single one also runs either Delver or Snappy or both.

[joemauer]

Of course people would play ponder if they lost brainstorm.

Blue decks more often than not play the best one mana card filters they can. Remember when thresh decks ran portent before ponder came around?

[DragoFireheart]

Of course people would play ponder if they lost brainstorm.

Blue decks more often than not play the best one mana card filters they can. Remember when thresh decks ran portent before ponder came around?

Ugh, Portent. Such an awful card. I hated those draw during the next upkeep style of cantrips.

[f|i[p]]

http://i.imgur.com/M0us1.jpg

Banning Brainstorm isn't the correct choice because, as your data shows, brainstorm was fine before the printing of Delver and Snappy. It's clear that those two cards are the problem. Check the decks that are running brainstorms in the post-MMS meta: nearly every single one also runs either Delver or Snappy or both.

The whole point was because blue is getting absurdly imbalanced right now, ( and I think blue was always slightly imbalanced ) wizards has to address it...As you said.. Delver and Snapcaster are the culprits. They have pushed blue to a new level of imbalance. And the best card to weaken or even slightly weaken blue is to take out brainstorm the way I see it..

Just like survival..
imagine survival is brainstorm.. (just for comparison)
Survival was always in legacy, and was not even in tier 1 decks before... (brainstorm was) and there were tons of different survival decks... which was incredibly fun and nostalgic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! more fun than brainstorm.
Vengevine was printed... (snapcaster and delver for blue)
Goodbye survival... and it wasn't even the problem card that was addressed...which was clearly vengvine.
Something has to go for blue to weaken it a bit... and I don't think they will ban delver and snapcaster...

However.. survival isn't really comparable to brainstorm..
I have always felt brainstorm was imbalanced for what it can do for a deck, its construction and limitations as compared to other colors... Lived with it for years.. and I am quite glad,people actually see its true power for blue based decks as a whole..


@ IBA
Thanks for the data! it really is interesting...

[AriLax]

Brainstorm makes early shuffles and conditional Blue cards better.

Snapcaster makes any instants and sorceries with CMC 1 or maybe 2 better.

Which is the most restrictive on future design?

[Koby]

Brainstorm makes early shuffles and conditional Blue cards better.

Snapcaster makes any instants and sorceries with CMC 1 or maybe 2 better.

Which is the most restrictive on future design?

Lands that tap for :u:.

[Gheizen64]

Brainstorm makes early shuffles and conditional Blue cards better.

Snapcaster makes any instants and sorceries with CMC 1 or maybe 2 better.

Which is the most restrictive on future design?

I prefer cards that are more restrictive on future design than on deck design, personally. Snapcaster is a bit overhyped right now anyway.

[Lemnear]

Just because I'm interested IBA: Ar those the SCG 2011 data only or something more global?

As I said in the other thread: WotC printed Vengevine to have a excuse to chop a Legacy defining card like Survial and now they are doing the same for Brainstorm with Delver and MegaMan. There can't Be any other reason to print a blue nacatl and Making scm Blue (should Be red goddamn).

IF this banning happens i expect more broken creatures in the future to justify banning all other broken Cards in Legacy like LED like a creature for bbb that gives your spells Storm and shit etc. or Ban Show and Tell with a 20 mana creature with etb "Win the Game"

[KevinTrudeau]

Just because I'm interested IBA: Ar those the SCG 2011 data only or something more global?

As I said in the other thread: WotC printed Vengevine to have a excuse to chop a Legacy defining card like Survial and now they are doing the same for Brainstorm with Delver and MegaMan. There can't Be any other reason to print a blue nacatl and Making scm Blue (should Be red goddamn).

IF this banning happens i expect more broken creatures in the future to justify banning all other broken Cards in Legacy like LED like a creature for bbb that gives your spells Storm and shit etc. or Ban Show and Tell with a 20 mana creature with etb "Win the Game"

I don't know if I fully agree with your theory on the printing of Vengevine solely to get Survival banned (you're giving them too much credit), but they definitely had it in mind when they printed it, as Fauna Shaman debuted in the very next set.

Also, I can't believe I hadn't noticed Tiago=Mega Man before, I'm like a Mega Man aficionado (just the NES games).

On topic: much too small of a sample size to really base an argument off of, although the argument is still somewhat plausible even though I disagree with it as of now on an objective level, and completely disagree with it on a subjective level. Graphing the top four-winner data seems pretty pointless (and would be fallacious if you were to base a large portion of your argument off of it) because you're covering specific matches, as opposed to large sets of matches.

[DragoFireheart]

;601151']The whole point was because blue is getting absurdly imbalanced right now, ( and I think blue was always slightly imbalanced ) wizards has to address it...As you said.. Delver and Snapcaster are the culprits. They have pushed blue to a new level of imbalance. And the best card to weaken or even slightly weaken blue is to take out brainstorm the way I see it..

Just like survival..
imagine survival is brainstorm.. (just for comparison)
Survival was always in legacy, and was not even in tier 1 decks before... (brainstorm was) and there were tons of different survival decks... which was incredibly fun and nostalgic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! more fun than brainstorm.
Vengevine was printed... (snapcaster and delver for blue)
Goodbye survival... and it wasn't even the problem card that was addressed...which was clearly vengvine.
Something has to go for blue to weaken it a bit... and I don't think they will ban delver and snapcaster...

However.. survival isn't really comparable to brainstorm..
I have always felt brainstorm was imbalanced for what it can do for a deck, its construction and limitations as compared to other colors... Lived with it for years.. and I am quite glad,people actually see its true power for blue based decks as a whole..


@ IBA
Thanks for the data! it really is interesting...

See, the power level of Brainstorm isn't comparable to the power level of SotF. On one hand you have the best cantrip in the game. On the other, you have an enchantment that can tutor any creature you want and dump veggies for quick kills.

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/122l


Other cards were considered, such as Vengevine. However some of the winning decks do not even play Vengevine; instead, they primarily rely on combinations with Necrotic Ooze. Also, Survival is a card that gives the decks a lot of resilience to potential answer cards. Some combination decks fail when they draw cards intended as answers to opponents' decks instead of cards that are part of their winning combination. However, with Survival of the Fittest on the battlefield, a drawn Qasali Pridemage can be replaced with any other creature in the deck for one mana.

SotF caused other problems that were independent of the Veggies. It did too much for very little, so it got banned.

Brainstorm, while powerful, isn't comparable. It's a one-shot cantrip effect that can act like a pseudo A-recall if you have the proper setup. Many people are saying that Delver/Snappy are pushed to overpowered levels by Brainstorm. The truth is they have their statement is they got their statement backwards: Brainstorm is pushed to overpowered levels by Delver and Snappy. I think Snappy would be ok as is, but Delver is too much for his cost. Even if Brainstorm were banned, I feel Delver is still too powerful without it.

[TsumiBand]

If they print stuff that's only good in Standard and NOT good in Eternal formats, Standard will always be too underpowered to matter a damn in Legacy and Legacy's cardpool will not change. Prices on staples that WotC *just won't reprint* will go up, players will not be able to filter down to Eternal as easily, and suddenly the format is as introverted as Vintage.

If they print things that are good in Standard AND move down to Legacy, everybody headdesks and they worry that their format staples are going to be devalued/get banned/etc. Some yutz from tcgplayer.com writes an article nobody reads and the Legacy community gets paper cuts from unsleeving 4 cards from their decks. Somewhere in the distance, a brontosaurus howls "All my friends are dead."

Personally I would prefer to only see the Legacy cardpool expand, since that's kind of supposed to be the point of Eternal formats, but I would not want to be in the position of an R&D guy at Wizards right now. You mean to tell me that even though the target market is playing casual Standard, I have to try and print shit that isn't going to wreck Standard, Modern, Vintage or Legacy but somehow be playable in those same formats, or else I'm not doing my job? At some point they probably just toss their hands in the air and decide that Legacy players are hopefully old and wise enough to endure a couple of ripples in the way they build their decks, because it is and will become increasingly harder to measure every interaction that could possibly occur in Eternal - even if it's as stupid obvious as Delver, Brainstorm and 52 other Good Blue Cards.

[jrw1985]

3 cards that are great with Brainstorm:

Snapcaster Mage
Delver of Secrets
Past in Flames

And Brainstorm has become MORE popular and dominant since Innistrad? I just don't know why!

[catmint]

People talk like delver of secrets and snapcaster mage break the format. Both cards imply significant design constraints in deckbuilding, which can easily be beaten and/or hated out.

Altough I play blue I also think these creatures would have been better in other colors to balance things, however RUG Tempo, Snapcaster BUG, Snapcaster UW,... all loose to their fair share of decks. Just because the flavor of the month does not reflect it that does not mean the meta is stuck.

[Lemnear]

@ Tsunami; just a note

Legacy's cardpool near never "expands". Older cards were simply replaced. Do you still see Werebear as a compeditor for Tarmogoyf? Jackal Pup for Goblin Guide? Juggernaut for Lodestone Golem? Serra Angel for Baneslayer? Nimble Moongoose for Delver of Secrets? I could continue endlessly....

It's rare that new cards got printed and define new space in Legacy like LftL or Counterbalance/Top did.

It's always that either new cards are complete junk or overpowered and make existing cards suboptimal to play and let em drop to 1$-rares because nobody wants them. Shockduals pre-modern was a nice indicator. They ARE an alternative for original duals (unless you run 3-4 colored decks) but were labeled crap.

Lil off-topic

[Michael Keller]

Delver and Snapcaster Mage are recent printings. Every single time a new card(s) gets printed, people find what it or they works best with. Then, they exploit it because it's the hot play of the month. Sometimes, it's really, really good. Too good. Over the course of several months, the hype wears off and people shift gears of thinking.

Not this time, though. Who the hell knows what's going to happen at this point. I mean, we just had a random Blue, conditional 'counterspell' banned, and now people are looking for a reason to axe the best card in Legacy because of two other mistakes R&D made.

I think Adam (Nightmare) said in one of his articles recently, "Welcome back to the 'Golden Age' of Legacy." Let me just refresh your memories a bit. Anyone remember the years between 1998 and 2000? I certainly do. I also remember this path R&D was on while they were printing some of the most undercosted, powerful Blue spells of all time (Tinker, Windfall, even Time Spiral, which was effectively free). Certainly not in the same league but indefinitely in the same vein, there's a disturbing trend of printings where R&D is trying to further polarize Blue's assertion as the most powerful color in Magic as a whole.

Some cards do get more powerful as time goes on. Brainstorm just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - same with Survival.

[jrw1985]

Doesn't it seem entirely logical and intuitive that, given the rising power level of Legacy, a card restricted in Vintage will eventually need to be banned in Legacy as well?

[edgarps22]

While I agree that Brainstorm is good, and certainly has penetrated deeply, I also believe its a bit of a flavor of the month thing at the moment. Delver is good, I play primarily on Cockatrice at the moment and I run into him relatively often, and rarely am I concerned. He has actually made strategies like Punishing Fire/Grove of the Burnwillows worthwhile. Snapcaster is very good but only in the mid to late game. In my opinion he is too slow. I will admit that I do run Brainstorm in my BUG list, but I hardly am concerned about opposing Delvers or Snapcasters, because usually by then they are too weak, or I already have the board position. I also am not running either Snapcaster or Delver and have winning match-ups against them in testing so far.

I feel Brainstorm is still very strong and will miss it if it does get the ax, but I honestly don't believe it needs to be axed, but for that not to happen some good innovation has to come out that makes it seem like it is exactly what it is, just another good card we have in Legacy. As things have been going, it is the most represented card in the top tables, and is a very powerful effect, I will lament its passing, but we will adjust if it happens.

@Lemnear, Nimble Mongoose right now, which I run in my BUG list, is supremely good. No one is running sweepers, blanks all of their spot removal, and is just as fast of a clock as long as you can control the board.

[KevinTrudeau]

Doesn't it seem entirely logical and intuitive that, given the rising power level of Legacy, a card restricted in Vintage will eventually need to be banned in Legacy as well?

It's intuitive, but not logical. Even though Legacy and Vintage share the 'Eternal' moniker together, they're two completely different formats. One could make the intuitive (yet illogical) assertion that the banning of Brainstorm would basically kill Legacy as a format like it did Vintage as well. Note that I'm saying such a notion would be illogical if you were to base it strictly off of Vintage, and not necessarily because it could happen again; it's certainly within the realm of possibilities, although I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't.

[joemauer]

Guys there is really only one sound and reasonable solution to the power creep of brainstorm and the rest of the color blue.......WotC needs to ban blue.

[I am the brainwasher]

I also get more and more the impression that Brainstorm will leave Legacy.
The most sad thing that could potentially could ever happen to the format will become reality in the near future, at least the chance of this event really happening is quite huge at the moment.
There are just 2 different ways to fix the situation, which might not be enought to make people realize whats actually wrong with Legacy right now.
There is the chance to ban Snapcaster Mage + Show and Tell
OR
there is the simple, but devastating one of banning Brainstorm.

I do understand that Brainstorm in its role as a enabler gets significantly better with each card printed that fits into existing shells of control/combo/Tempo - decks that actually do use brainstorm, but now someone should raise the question why the cards that really fit into that category are mainly blue out of the new sets.
Unbalancing the colorpie was so absurd this year. Jace, Snapcaster, Delver and also rather inconspicous cards are blue and did so much harm to the format that I really am quite pissed.
Remember the time Jace, TMS came out? Some players didnt even considered it beeing playable in Legacy at that time (which it might have been for some reasons). Now playing Jace in a blue deck outside of Tempo/Combo is nearly unimaginable.
If you take a closer look at it, first Mental Mistep really was the one to blame for blue decks dominance at that time. Reducing the opposing clock/centerpieces to have enough time to play rather clunky win cons and controllish elements, well, like Jace TMS/SFM made blue decks uberly powerful, even if it wasnt that obvious and dramatic in comparison to the actual situation.
Now, go back a few weeks. Everyone thought that Blade control decks have vanished due to the fact that those are unable to protect their early threads as easy as back in the days with MM. Wrong, this was just wrong. The tempo swing those decks gained from beeing able to have virtual 8 StP, Brainstorm, Spell Snares AND amazing sideboard options like Surgical Extraction, REB's against tougher MU's were in the end even more questionable than MM was just a few month before.
Quick after that, people started to realize, also, that playing Snapcaster Mage in Tempo decks is even more profitable because you are more able to deny the opposing deck to gain Tempo in general and attack from different angles, in combination with free counterspells to really annoy any deck to the point that it doenst make much sense to not join the same strategy, mainly because its the one that gives you equal chances against nearly any deck.
I hope the responsibles do understand that the problem lays not within Brainstorm but as the enabler that allows to gain absurd card/tempo advantage for the cost of 2-4 Mana. Snapcaster Mage is hilarious, even outside of Legacy and will continue to be too broken, regardless of Brainstorm getting banned.
Why is so damn hard to understand that this, plus absurd 2 card combos which are nearly unhateable for non-blue decks fucked the format?

[makochman]

WotC printed Vengevine to have a excuse to chop a Legacy defining card like Survial and now they are doing the same for Brainstorm with Delver and MegaMan. There can't Be any other reason to print a blue nacatl and Making scm Blue (should Be red goddamn)

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.

They did not print Vengevine to kill off Survival. They must have seen the Survival-Vengevine implications because they then went on to print Fauna Shaman, but in all likelihood, they just didn't playtest it. They do not playtest Legacy, they said that some time ago. Even in Standard, what testing they do is often insufficient, otherwise we wouldn't have seen the whole SFM/Batterskull shebang. Nor was Survival a format defining card before the printing of Vengevine.

[DragoFireheart]

Why is so damn hard to understand that this, plus absurd 2 card combos which are nearly unhateable for non-blue decks fucked the format?

There is what I believe to be a negative stigma about banning creatures. It's viewed that creatures are not ban worthy because you can kill them, but non-permanent based spells are harder to interact with so they are somehow more ban worthy.

Very few creatures are banned from Legacy play. The following are banned from Legacy:

Goblin Recruiter
Hermit Druid
Tempest Efreet
Timmerian Fiends
Worldgorger Dragon


I believe there many be a bias from either fans of magic or WotC about banning creatures. When was the last time a creature was banned in Legacy?

[joemauer]

Which is more powerful?

Goblin Recruiter or Snapcaster Mage?

Not saying snappy certainly needs to be banned, but why is goblin recruiter still on the banned list?

[DragoFireheart]

Which is more powerful?

Goblin Recruiter or Snapcaster Mage?

Not saying snappy certainly needs to be banned, but why is goblin recruiter still on the banned list?

Either due to it's perceived power or because of it's perceived time-consuming effect (similar to Land Tax I would imagine).

[jrw1985]

It's intuitive, but not logical. Even though Legacy and Vintage share the 'Eternal' moniker together, they're two completely different formats. One could make the intuitive (yet illogical) assertion that the banning of Brainstorm would basically kill Legacy as a format like it did Vintage as well. Note that I'm saying such a notion would be illogical if you were to base it strictly off of Vintage, and not necessarily because it could happen again; it's certainly within the realm of possibilities, although I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't.

It seems logical to me. Power creep is making individual cards better and better. Brainstorm now allows you to sculpt an increasingly powerful hand. Brainstorm becomes better simply because it now draws you better cards. That seems like the reason it was restricted in Vintage, and also seems like a reasonable argument for banning it in Legacy.

I also doubt that banning Brainstorm would destroy the format. Legacy would simply become split into brainstorm/post-bs eras.

[Lemnear]

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.

They did not print Vengevine to kill off Survival. They must have seen the Survival-Vengevine implications because they then went on to print Fauna Shaman, but in all likelihood, they just didn't playtest it. They do not playtest Legacy, they said that some time ago. Even in Standard, what testing they do is often insufficient, otherwise we wouldn't have seen the whole SFM/Batterskull shebang. Nor was Survival a format defining card before the printing of Vengevine.

I'm sure they see the interaction before ... Fauna Shaman is a near prove for that. A point we agree but they designed a 4/3 haste with a free mechanic attached and could not imagine that it gets out of hand? Come on, WotC isn't that dumb.

Now we have Snapcaster cheap and blue and WotC should not have expected that it might Be played with Brainstorm (StoP, Stifle) in the same deck? It's like the justification of missteps ban:

"we did not expect that a Blue counter is mainly played in blue decks but it is and it's undesireable"

SFM+Batterskull: Mark Rosewater explained that they knew about SFM and it's power but wanted to make a monster mythic rare Living weapon. This was not an accident that could happen in game design, it was handmade.

Suvival was Meta defining during extended with recurring nightmare and tradewind Survival advantage.

[DragoFireheart]

It seems logical to me. Power creep is making individual cards better and better. Brainstorm now allows you to sculpt an increasingly powerful hand. Brainstorm becomes better simply because it now draws you better cards. That seems like the reason it was restricted in Vintage, and also seems like a reasonable argument for banning it in Legacy.

-So you want to see Ponder and Preordain banned as well? Because your logic fits for them as well.




I also doubt that banning Brainstorm would destroy the format. Legacy would simply become split into brainstorm/post-bs eras.

Vintage died because Brainstorm was Restricted. If you are going to apply logic for one format from another, be consistent.

[Xantid Swarm]

Thanks a lot for your awesome work, IBA. Those statistics are realy eyes-opener. Until now, I wasn't sure if axing Brainstorm would be good or bad for the format, but this is the kind of thing that can convince me. Sure, Brainstorm is a fun and skill-testing card but it's also powerfull enough to be ban worthy.

Those stats show at least that there is a problem. If Brainstorm decks continue to see play at this level until december, I suppose the ban hammer could be the solution.

If a card need go, there is no other solution than banning Brainstorm. For obvious reason, it's impossible to ban Force of Will. Sure, Snapcaster Mage and Delver of Secrets are realy good cards but certanly not broken. They came with restrictions on deck construction. Snapcaster is probably about the same power level than Confident, SFM and Goyf, cards that don't need a ban. Snapcaster is far from being in every blue decks. Same is true on Delver. Brainstorm IS in every blue deck (with only one exception).

Nobody will argue that Ancestral Recall need to stay on the ban list. The fact that Brainstorm is often so close of being a true Recall strongly suggest that it can have a place on the ban list. In some situation, Brainstorm is even better than Recall. The fact that "it is just a cantrip" do not make the card impossible to ban at all.

[DragoFireheart]

Nobody will argue that Ancestral Recall need to stay on the ban list. The fact that Brainstorm is often so close of being a true Recall strongly suggest that it can have a place on the ban list.

- LED is close to Black Lotus. Should it be banned as well?




In some situation, Brainstorm is even better than Recall. The fact that "it is just a cantrip" do not make the card impossible to ban at all.

-In some situations, Mountain Goat is better than Black Lotus.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@Lemnear: I was using the SCG Database because it's a lot easier to comb through than the Council's. I can actually include the results from Grand Prix Amsterdam. To counterbalance the American influence somewhat, in fact, and because it was so large, I'll basically count GP Amsterdam as being twice the ranking of a Legacy Open; so top 32 is treated as top 16, top 16 is treated as two top 8s, and so on.

Let's look at what that does to the picture for Legacy post-Innistrad, besides making our database 20% larger.

http://i.imgur.com/FaCdD.jpg

I should note that the odds of 14 out of 14 top 2 decklists running Brainstorm, if a Brainstorm deck were even merely 60% favored against a non-Brainstorm deck in this scenario, are vanishingly small, a small fraction of a percent. Let's look at the rest of the field.

http://i.imgur.com/OATwW.jpg

Other big blue cards:

http://i.imgur.com/ORP9K.jpg

Color penetration generally, decks with 10% or more of a color:

http://i.imgur.com/EvO7U.jpg

And for fun, Brainstorm compared to cards that have previously been banned, tracking their performance during that card's respective "era";

http://i.imgur.com/CdbOY.jpg

Some takeaways:

- Wasteland is being vastly over-rated
- Delver is amazing
- Why was Mystical Tutor banned?
- There is no apparent reason why anyone who is trying to win could possible sleeve up a deck that didn't begin with 4 Brainstorm, 4 Force at this point, regardless of what metagame they are expecting. It's not that the metagame isn't expecting blue; it's that it's trying to adjust to it and finding that only blue decks tend to beat other blue decks reliably.


So that's it, as far as I can see there's no question that if things continue we'll end up with a metagame where any serious deck has to be running blue. The only question is whether we want that- and such a metagame might still have a fair variety amongst the actual decklists, once the blue core is ignored- or whether we would rather ban something.

[DragoFireheart]

The most interesting thing about graphs and data is that the number of interpretations of the data is greater than 1. Is one view on the data more correct than another? How do I know that X view is correct and Y view is wrong?



- There is no apparent reason why anyone who is trying to win could possible sleeve up a deck that didn't begin with 4 Brainstorm, 4 Force at this point, regardless of what metagame they are expecting. It's not that the metagame isn't expecting blue; it's that it's trying to adjust to it and finding that only blue decks tend to beat other blue decks reliably.

If this were the case, then why are we seeing other decks take first place? (Note: TC Deck data)

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=10&ylow=2011&dhigh=1&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&main=&nomain=&side=&noside=&strict=on

That list contradicts SCG data you presented. All of these decks did not run Brainstorm:

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=10&ylow=2011&dhigh=1&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&main=&nomain=Brainstorm&side=&noside=&strict=on

All of these decks did:

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=10&ylow=2011&dhigh=1&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&main=Brainstorm&nomain=&side=&noside=&strict=on






So that's it, as far as I can see there's no question that if things continue we'll end up with a metagame where any serious deck has to be running blue. The only question is whether we want that- and such a metagame might still have a fair variety amongst the actual decklists, once the blue core is ignored- or whether we would rather ban something.

True, but SCG is not the only one who hold tournaments either.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The most interesting thing about graphs and data is that the number of interpretations of the data is greater than 1. Is one view on the data more correct than another? How do I know that X view is correct and Y view is wrong?

"Somebody might disagree with you" is an interesting counter-argument.

In that it is not a counter-argument at all.

Someone might one day disprove the theory of evolution, but until they do saying that it might happen is the mere pretense of knowledge.

[DragoFireheart]

"Somebody might disagree with you" is an interesting counter-argument.

In that it is not a counter-argument at all.


Someone might one day disprove the theory of evolution, but until they do saying that it might happen is the mere pretense of knowledge.

- What if someone presents an alternate argument using the same data? How would I know (assuming they didn't falsify anything) that one person is more right than the other? How do I know that banning brainstorm will fix the problem compared to banning Delver and/or Snappy?

Edit: Furthermore, if placement in tournaments is used as the guideline to determine bannings, Force of Will is in the same situation as Brainstorm. If Brainstorm is banned and FoW see 100% representation in SCG first placement, should we ban FoW?

[socialite]

- What if someone presents an alternate argument using the same data? How would I know (assuming they didn't falsify anything) that one person is more right than the other? How do I know that banning brainstorm will fix the problem compared to banning Delver and/or Snappy?

Edit: Furthermore, if placement in tournaments is used as the guideline to determine bannings, Force of Will is in the same situation as Brainstorm. If Brainstorm is banned and FoW see 100% representation in SCG first placement, should we ban FoW?

This is similar to ban Vengevine rather than Survival argument. Both are stupid.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Please tell me why something should be banned just because it is widely played.

Brainstorm is a card, not a deck or strategy.

[DragoFireheart]

This is similar to ban Vengevine rather than Survival argument. Both are stupid.

Not even close. According to IBAs data, SotF didn't even break 60% of the 1st place representation. Fow and Brainstorm both are 100%.

[socialite]

Not even close. According to IBAs data, SotF didn't even break 60% of the 1st place representation. Fow and Brainstorm both are 100%.

Apparently missing my point. The Source, your source for a noise to signal ratio off the charts!

[DragoFireheart]

Apparently missing my point. The Source, your source for a noise to signal ratio off the charts!

Well, would you please clarify then? I misunderstood you.

[4eak]

"Somebody might disagree with you" is an interesting counter-argument.

In that it is not a counter-argument at all.

Someone might one day disprove the theory of evolution, but until they do saying that it might happen is the mere pretense of knowledge.

My worry is that your data/conclusions aren't statistically significant (I'm betting they aren't). There seems to be a reasonable sort of argument one can make (an objection to a premise in your argument, which isn't strictly-speaking a counterargument) that goes something like: you aren't in a position to justify your claim. This doesn't make a proposition true or false, but it doesn't call into question whether or not your inductive argument is a good one and one we should all accept. If the data isn't significant enough, then it probably means we aren't justified in making these sorts of claims from the data alone.


peace,
4eak

[clavio]

Please tell me why something should be banned just because it is widely played.

Brainstorm is a card, not a deck or strategy.

I totally agree with this. In some formats basic lands are fucking everywhere, nobody is calling for those to be banned. It's not like every time someone casts brainstorm I feel like my day just got ruined.

[DragoFireheart]

My worry is that your data/conclusions aren't statistically significant (I'm betting they aren't).

There's no need to bet. He admitted that he only used SCG Opens data:


And I'm using SCG Opens because they're a database that's easily available of all large tournaments, even though I think they do tend to have an echo chamber effect.

That alone should be evidence enough that his argument, while partially true, may not be truly accurate without all of the data available. Doesn't the Source use TC Decks as data for determining which decks it would consider Tier 1? It seems intellectually dishonest to omit other data and only use SCG Opens.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm not "omitting" anything, I specifically said I was including the SCG Opens because it was the easiest database of large tournaments to comb. Omitting smaller and non-professional tournaments helps cut down on the statistical noise; it hardly matters if Goblins win a local tourney, if it can't perform well when people are playing competitively. I also specifically threw in the GP Amsterdam data to try and counteract any possible bias just now, it didn't change anything, it just strengthened the confirmation that blue decks are far and away superior to non-blue.

And while preference for decks may explain the raw percentages of a card, they can't explain its trend. If Brainstorm was merely popular with the SCG circuit but not that good, one would expect it to do... well, what Wasteland does.

If you want to comb through the more inconvenient Council search engine and compile your own data, you're free to. I doubt you will because you don't seem to bring anything to the discussion, ever. But in the meantime, how about you not call those of us who actually try to advance the discussion "intellectually dishonest" because you prefer to sit around aimlessly conjecturing based on fuck all.

[UnderwaterGuy]

I think that limiting the colors to %10 or more is pretty misleading. Many many decks splash for colors and you are leaving all of those out when you only count >%10. This makes it look like blue is most prevalent by a larger margin than it actually is.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I think that limiting the colors to %10 or more is pretty misleading. Many many decks splash for colors and you are leaving all of those out when you only count >%10. This makes it look like blue is most prevalent by a larger margin than it actually is.

I mean I already included the most popular cards separately. Is it relevant to include decks that don't have any green in their 75 except for 4 Tarmogoyfs "green decks," when I've already got the raw data on Tarmogoyfs?

There would also be a problem with cards like Dismember and several builds of Reanimator/Dredge and the like.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Please tell me why something should be banned just because it is widely played.

Brainstorm is a card, not a deck or strategy.

Cards are what Wizards bans, not decks or strategies.

A card should be banned if playing it is a prerequisite to playing the game, or if it warps the metagame such that people find it unfun.

The latter isn't necessarily happening, but the former very likely is.

[jrw1985]

-So you want to see Ponder and Preordain banned as well? Because your logic fits for them as well.




Vintage died because Brainstorm was Restricted. If you are going to apply logic for one format from another, be consistent.

1. Never said I wanted to see Ponder or Preordain banned. Preordain isn't restricted in Vintage, and the fact that Ponder is only highlights how powerful digging effects are in already powerful formats. If power creep is so insidiously corrosive to the health of a format that a card like Ponder (which allows you to dig more than draw) is deemed to be Restrictable in Vintage, that only seems to strengthen the argument for banning the overpowered digging/sculpting effect of Brainstorm in Legacy.

2. I'm pretty sure no one plays Vintage because of the 5 figure pricetags on the decks, not because they can't play Brainstorm. But if I'm wrong and Ancestral Recall and Necropotence and Black Lotus and Time Walk are just no fun to play/unplayable without 4 Brainstorms, well, that would seem to suggest that Brainstorm is overpowered.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Cards are what Wizards bans, not decks or strategies.

A card should be banned if playing it is a prerequisite to playing the game, or if it warps the metagame such that people find it unfun.

The latter isn't necessarily happening, but the former very likely is.

Force of Will is the prerequisite. You play FoW so you don't lose to combo decks. You play Brainstorm because you are already in blue, you need a high number of blue cards to use your FoW, and Brainstorm is a powerful card selection spell.

Banning Brainstorm will not allow you to win without FoW and it won't make people stop playing blue. Decks with FoW will run a different card to replace Brainstorm but not running FoW still won't be much of an option.


I mean I already included the most popular cards separately. Is it relevant to include decks that don't have any green in their 75 except for 4 Tarmogoyfs "green decks," when I've already got the raw data on Tarmogoyfs?

There would also be a problem with cards like Dismember and several builds of Reanimator/Dredge and the like.


I think it's pretty relevant to represent the colors if you're going to make a graph of the colors percentages. If you didn't think it was relevant why would you make the graph anyway? There would not be a problem with cards that are effectively colorless because you could count them as colorless. With your system the current RUG decks are counted as mono-blue and I find that to be pretty silly.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Combo usually leans heavily on Brainstorm, isn't played in high numbers, and is usually quite fragile to various forms of hate. And even with Brainstorm they tend to be unreliable.

Brainstorm is the consensus best card in the format for a reason, it makes the decks its in much more consistent and flexible.

[Michael Keller]

Which is more powerful?

Goblin Recruiter or Snapcaster Mage?

I am not sure, but what I can tell you is that anyone who runs Goblin Recruiter had better watch out for Grindstone.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Combo usually leans heavily on Brainstorm, isn't played in high numbers, and is usually quite fragile to various forms of hate. And even with Brainstorm they tend to be unreliable.

Brainstorm is the consensus best card in the format for a reason, it makes the decks its in much more consistent and flexible.

Some combo decks use Brainstorm but it's not true to say that it leans heavily on it. Using the current numbers for combo is also pretty pointless because I think we've already covered that Force is in EVERY winning deck. Blue decks are everywhere so combo can't totally take over.

My point is that banning brainstorm wouldn't affect the amount of blue being played and combo decks don't need Brainstorm to exist, they can still easily crush all of the non-blue non-specific hate decks.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Some combo decks use Brainstorm but it's not true to say that it leans heavily on it. Using the current numbers for combo is also pretty pointless because I think we've already covered that Force is in EVERY winning deck. Blue decks are everywhere so combo can't totally take over.

My point is that banning brainstorm wouldn't affect the amount of blue being played and combo decks don't need Brainstorm to exist, they can still easily crush all of the non-blue non-specific hate decks.

If the top 8s were 50% rather than 70% blue, and the top 2s were 66% rather than 100% blue, Belcher would still be an awful choice.

I don't think anyone has suggested that blue would be unplayable without Brainstorm, have they?

[UnderwaterGuy]

If the top 8s were 50% rather than 70% blue, and the top 2s were 66% rather than 100% blue, Belcher would still be an awful choice.

I don't think anyone has suggested that blue would be unplayable without Brainstorm, have they?

Blue would become worse and combo would become better. Those are the changes that would come.

I don't think blue would become any less played at all and that's exactly what I said in my post :/

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Blue would become worse and combo would become better. Those are the changes that would come.

I don't think blue would become any less played at all and that's exactly what I said in my post :/


Okay, but as I said, right now combo is awful. What's so wrong with having some combo in the metagame? If we weaken blue and its lost share only goes to combo, and the metagame is nothing but combo and aggro-control decks, fine, that's a problem, deal with it then.

But there's no reason to suppose that will happen. There was a lot of combo decks in the Mystical Tutor which were supposedly dominant, but blue was worse then than it was now, because those combo decks didn't simply blow out every non-blue deck, they had deck-specific matchups. Reanimator struggled mightily to beat Zoo, for instance.

[jrw1985]

Thank you, IBA, for putting in the leg work on this. Very cool stuff.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Well I was bored.

To go back to the previous point a bit;

Put another way, to say that combo would rise if Brainstorm got banned because aggro-control decks would be worse is relying upon an old way of thinking, in which Thresh-like decks were best for combo metas.

That's not the case. There doesn't seem to be a meta answer to Brainstorm+Force decks in the current metagame that's not another variant of a Brainstorm+Force deck.

If Brainstorm was banned, those decks would still be good against combo decks. But their overall matchups would decrease. Other decks would beat blue aggro-control strategies. They might lose to combo, so maybe combo would get better- but so what? Right now it's hardly on the radar. Then you might have to make an actual metagaming decision from the ground up. Right now you can show up to a tournament with some aggro-control variant of 4 Brainstorm 4 Force some other stuff sleeved up, and maybe tweak around a few cards after walking around the tournament, and still be very very well positioned no matter what the metagame is like.

[Finn]

A few years back wotc made a sincere effort to curb the power of blue in Standard. No more excellent instants that draw cards. Various ways to get around countermagic. Decreasing the cost if creatures and creature removal while increasing the cost of countermagic, etc. Unfortunately Legacy does not benefit from any if that. Why not make another change specifically for Legacy.

I would not mind brainstorm banned. But how about printing usable hosers and mechanics that impede card drawing or seeing extra cards or various elements of successful blue decks. There really is not a strong reason not to play brainstorm and all the design properties that accompany it ATM. Even hosing fetchlands could work.

Slow the F$@k Down Mage
RG
2/3
Creature - Wizard
Instant, sorcery, and creature spells cast any time a sorcery could not be cast cost 1 more generic mana.

Dead Thinker
1B
2/2
Creature - Cleric
Whenever a source an opponent controls causes him to draw a card, you may put a card from your graveyard into your hand. (This does not apply to the first card drawn during the draw step.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose life equal to the number of Islands you control.

Ukfe Uye Uble
W
1/1
Creature - Soldier
Flash
Whenever a player counters a spell without paying mana, each of that player's opponents may put a permanent card from his graveyard onto the battlefield.

[DragoFireheart]

Put another way, to say that combo would rise if Brainstorm got banned because aggro-control decks would be worse is relying upon an old way of thinking, in which Thresh-like decks were best for combo metas.

- I'm not sure what you are talking about. Could you elaborate please?



That's not the case. There doesn't seem to be a meta answer to Brainstorm+Force decks in the current metagame that's not another variant of a Brainstorm+Force deck.


-There is in fact a meta answer for BS/FoW decks:
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?20612-DTB-GW-x-Maverick




If Brainstorm was banned, those decks would still be good against combo decks.

-Why? What evidence do you have to show that those decks would still be good against combo decks?



But their overall matchups would decrease. Other decks would beat blue aggro-control strategies. They might lose to combo, so maybe combo would get better- but so what? Right now it's hardly on the radar. Then you might have to make an actual metagaming decision from the ground up.

- Other aggro decks can beat blue now. G/W Maverick is currently the best of the bunch. Burn is a fairly good choice against Blade Control. Goblins is good against Team America. What you are asking for is already happening.




Right now you can show up to a tournament with some aggro-control variant of 4 Brainstorm 4 Force some other stuff sleeved up, and maybe tweak around a few cards after walking around the tournament, and still be very very well positioned no matter what the metagame is like.

Right now, maybe. However, Snappy and Delver just recently got printed. It's been only a month. That is hardly enough time to determine whether anything should be banned or not as many people are likely using the new and flashy cards because they are new and flashy (and powerful). Give deck builders a chance to see if BS/FoW decks are truly as oppressive as many like yourself are perceiving them to be.

[Tao]

@Finn: Printing hosers is not the answer imo. The metagame would still resolve around the same cards. Maindecking them would only be good in a fucked Meta and a fucked Meta is not desirable. And if you print Sideboard cards, for them to matter they have to be better than Red Elemental Blast, Carpet of Flowers or Choke, which would mean they'd have to be absurdly good.

For the Combo discussion: I think Combo would get weaker with a Brainstorm ban. No other deck profits as much from Brainstorm as Combo. The effect is absurd in an archetype that has many dead draws by definition. Have 3 Emrakuls but no Show and Tell? Just Branstorm and put two back. Same with a trillion similar scenarios.
Imo getting stuck with excess Combo pieces in hand is what should happen to Combo decks. They should have to work a bit harder to get rid of them (Thirst for Knowledge for example).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The assertion that Maverick beats blue aggro-control decks doesn't seem to be based on anything. And Maverick decks sometimes splash blue. How do we know those aren't the best ones anyway?

[DragoFireheart]

The assertion that Maverick beats blue aggro-control decks doesn't seem to be based on anything.

- It is if you play test the deck. Go check out the Maverick topic.



And Maverick decks sometimes splash blue.

Ones without Brainstorm:
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=10&ylow=2011&dhigh=12&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&pos2=on&pos34=on&pos58=on&main=Stoneforge+Mystic%3B+Green+Sun%27s+Zenith%3B+Knight+of+the+Reliquary&nomain=Brainstorm&side=&noside=&strict=on

(Also a couple zoo decks, lol)

Ones with brainstorm:
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=10&ylow=2011&dhigh=12&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&pos2=on&pos34=on&pos58=on&main=Stoneforge+Mystic%3B+Green+Sun%27s+Zenith%3B+Knight+of+the+Reliquary%3B+Brainstorm&nomain=&side=&noside=&strict=on



How do we know those aren't the best ones anyway?

Well, my query didn't find any. Is that an indicator perhaps? Did I do my query wrong?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I've playtested the fuck out of Maverick, it's not a bad deck. But it's certainly not putting up the numbers. Amsterdam was Europe's chance to show off how good the straight g/w builds are if they wanted to, and it certainly didn't happen.

I don't know how the Council guys are organizing their decks, there's a lot of decks with Brainstorm, Knight of the Reliquary and Green Sun's Zenith all in the same thing.

[Intet's Attendant]

The best solution is to give every color brainstorm and force of will for one day and see what happens. Just see what happens.

[wcm8]

I just want to chime in here... I play a ton of Team America in playtesting and tournaments, and have a pretty decent track record to back my playskill up.

I've won MANY, MANY games without ever casting Brainstorm, and I don't really feel like Brainstorm is that pivotal to the deck's overall performance. In games where I get into topdeck mode, I'd much rather see Ponder than Brainstorm, because at least if the top 3 are chafe I can shuffle. If brainstorm were suddenly banned, I could probably just slot in 4 Preordains in its place and continue stomping face (unless somehow this caused a massive metagame shift where tempo is not good, but that's highly doubtful). I'm sure most diehard Canadian Thresh players would feel similarly. It's the combination of Stifle/Daze/FoW/Hymn that's winning games, Brainstorm just makes those cards a bit easier to find when you need them.

Brainstorm is not the problem, it's just that blue's abilities in general (card selection, drawing, and counterspells) are better than other color's abilities. I think Green could get more card selection and drawing (or hell, even a color-shifted Stifle), Black could get some better discard (how about Unmask but at instant speed?) and drawing (Bob and Night's Whisper are a start), White could maybe get some taxing counters (a white Daze? or Mana Leak? It already has Force Spike). Red is just so far removed from eternal-playable abilities, I'm not sure it will really be anything more than a support color in legacy/vintage.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

"X cards are winning, Brainstorm just makes them easier to find" is the whole point.

[CorpT]

"X cards are winning, Brainstorm just makes them easier to find" is the whole point.

Take a deck that doesn't have Brainstorm and add Brainstorm. See if it's better. Most of the time, I believe that it will be. Exceptions exist, obviously, but it's hard to say that GW Maverick is better than Maverick with Brainstorm and Force (aka Bant Aggro).

[KobeBryan]

I just want to chime in here... I play a ton of Team America in playtesting and tournaments, and have a pretty decent track record to back my playskill up.

I've won MANY, MANY games without ever casting Brainstorm, and I don't really feel like Brainstorm is that pivotal to the deck's overall performance. In games where I get into topdeck mode, I'd much rather see Ponder than Brainstorm, because at least if the top 3 are chafe I can shuffle. If brainstorm were suddenly banned, I could probably just slot in 4 Preordains in its place and continue stomping face (unless somehow this caused a massive metagame shift where tempo is not good, but that's highly doubtful). I'm sure most diehard Canadian Thresh players would feel similarly. It's the combination of Stifle/Daze/FoW/Hymn that's winning games, Brainstorm just makes those cards a bit easier to find when you need them.

Brainstorm is not the problem, it's just that blue's abilities in general (card selection, drawing, and counterspells) are better than other color's abilities. I think Green could get more card selection and drawing (or hell, even a color-shifted Stifle), Black could get some better discard (how about Unmask but at instant speed?) and drawing (Bob and Night's Whisper are a start), White could maybe get some taxing counters (a white Daze? or Mana Leak? It already has Force Spike). Red is just so far removed from eternal-playable abilities, I'm not sure it will really be anything more than a support color in legacy/vintage.

The whole argument for a brainstorm ban is that it doesn't actually destroy any decks because the winning conditions still exist. The purpose of the ban is to make blue a bit less consistent and to discourage decks running only 18 lands.

I mean how many decks outside of brainstorm filled decks can get by with 18 lands? not many. Its almost 4 extra cards that brainstorm allows these decks to get away with.

The only guy that is scared that brainstorm gets banned is dragonheart. not surprising that he plays countertop, counterblade, control blade.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Take a deck that doesn't have Brainstorm and add Brainstorm. See if it's better. Most of the time, I believe that it will be. Exceptions exist, obviously, but it's hard to say that GW Maverick is better than Maverick with Brainstorm and Force (aka Bant Aggro).

Right. I mean the best strategies in Legacy right now seem to fall mostly into the "pick three colors, try to get good stuff from those colors" category. And it's almost always better if you're not already to drop one of the other two colors for blue because it'll make all the good stuff in your other colors more consistent and hey, counters too I guess.

I don't know if good players just aren't playing more streamlined strategies in enough numbers, or if those decks are just sucking against the meta. I suspect it's the latter.

[joemauer]

Take a deck that doesn't have Brainstorm and add Brainstorm. See if it's better. Most of the time, I believe that it will be. Exceptions exist, obviously, but it's hard to say that GW Maverick is better than Maverick with Brainstorm and Force (aka Bant Aggro).

You could say the same thing about any good cards in Legacy: Gofy,Hymn to tourach, Swords to Plowshares, wasteland, and etc.

[CorpT]

You could say the same thing about any good cards in Legacy: Gofy,Hymn to tourach, Swords to Plowshares, wasteland, and etc.

I think there are some subtle differences.

Hymn is hard to splash for. It can be done, but comes at a fairly steep cost. BB is rough to "splash" for. You can't add Hymn to most decks and expect it to improve as much as adding Brainstorm.

I don't know that you would add W to a deck that doesn't play White just for Swords. Obviously, if you're in White, you're going to play Swords or Path, but how often are you going to White for the sole reason of playing Swords?

Goyf and Wasteland are more like Brainstorm in this regard. But, as IBA's numbers have shown, they are performing worse than Brainstorm is. By a fairly sizable margin.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You could say the same thing about any good cards in Legacy: Gofy,Hymn to tourach, Swords to Plowshares, wasteland, and etc.


No you couldn't. Didn't you read the thread? Read the thread. I went over this.

[joemauer]

Well with the exception of combo, I don't think any deck splashes blue solely to add brainstorm.

The data is kinda flawed. Brainstorm isn't the most played card because it is the indisputable best card of the format. Brainstorm is the most played card because it is the most versatile card blue has in the format's current best color.

If red was the best color of the format then lightning bolt would probably be the best card of the format. Same thing with green and it's gofy.

Blue as whole is too strong and it's not brainstorm's fault. It's WotC's fault.

[Barook]

I can post the raw numbers later, but here's the data for the entirety of 2011. Most of these cards haven't been played enough in the past month for the numbers for those to be reliable, although I can do them if people really want. The only reason we can get a rough guess of how Brainstorm performs within the top decks since Innistrad is that it's so ridiculously played right now.

Also I forgot to label the first three on the X/Y axis but it's the same thing as before.

http://i.imgur.com/7MLwP.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Rs75Q.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/33tze.jpg

And color performance generally:

http://i.imgur.com/HX3le.jpg

Black has a weird tendency to be mound shaped, maybe it's just easier to make play mistakes with black decks, which shows as time wears on? Conversely red tends to finish strong which likewise might be attributed to either less play decisions or fewer games going to time, allowing the red mage to increase performance.

It would be interesting to see how a ban of Brainstorm would affect Black's performance as a disruption color. BS hiding key cards does hinder discard's effectiveness quite a bit:

http://i.imgur.com/7MLwP.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Rs75Q.jpg

Looking at these numbers, I would interpret that the increase of Brainstorm % in combination with good players who outplay discard with it is the cause of the significant performance drop of Thoughtseize/discard towards the finals.

And let's be honest: What reason would one have to run black over blue as a disruption color, except being able to play Bob? White has the better removal (and other nice cards like SFM, KotR, etc.) and there's plenty of splashable graveyard hate that doesn't require a color.

[DragoFireheart]

The only guy that is scared that brainstorm gets banned is dragonheart. not surprising that he plays countertop, counterblade, control blade.

I'm not afraid that Brainstorm will be banned. I'm afraid that it will do nothing to blue's "dominance" and then people will be calling for banning Force of Will.

By all means, if Brainstorm truly is the culprit then ban it, but I simply disagree it's the problem. I believe banning it won't solve what some of you are calling "blue's dominance" (which I think is just a flavor of the month episode). Wait four months for concrete data.

I still believe Snapcaster mage and Delver of secrets are the main problem since brainstorm was fine before their printing. Ponder will still dig for the mage while he can still flashback STP. Delver will still be a 3/2 with flying. Perhaps brainstorm being removed will weaken him, but I doubt it would be enough.

[I am the brainwasher]

@Avatar of Shadow/whiners:

It seems you really know a lot about that format, dont you? I am definetly against banning Brainstorm as well as so many other players because I am kinda aware what consequences it will have.
Legacy is the only format that doesnt suck on a competeive level right now (even if it really isnt that great at the moment) and banning Brainstorm would destroy the format entireley and a huge part of the Legacy community as well.
Not that Brainstorm really ties Legacy on its own together but it nearly is that important, to players and the format.
Yes, I do play Brainstorm in my Legacy Deck(s) and yes, I do know how powerful the color and the card is but NO I am not crying about someone stealing my decks with a banning. Theres a difference between that if you havent noticed that.
I for myself, would really look forward to play a nonblue deck again in the near future and I am the last one who complains if my current decks would become unplayable if Brainstorm is banned (even if I might get a bit upset about Canadian Threshold :cry:) and this is the reason why I spend my time in front of a computer, trying to point out what is going on with the format (logically in my oppinion).
I really like playing non-blue decks and I am really hoping that this is possible in the future, but if Brainstorm gets banned I would have a damn hard time playing Legacy at all, mainly because nonblue decks really are unplayable then.

[sligh16]

I really like playing non-blue decks and I am really hoping that this is possible in the future, but if Brainstorm gets banned I would have a damn hard time playing Legacy at all, mainly because nonblue decks really are unplayable then.

Would you mind explaining this part? I kinda glimpse the combo argument, but not really sure.

[I am the brainwasher]

What I basically tried to say with that is that as soon different Combo-players have figured out that the current Combo-shells can do absurd things even without Brainstorm the format is left in the awkward situation that Control/Aggrocontrol decks which really rely on Brainstorm, which most combo decks dont if they adapt, are broken down to a level that removes a basic thing from the selfregulating system of Aggr-Combo-Control. This situation would become reality and is then connected with more bannings which are necessary to let decks that doesnt have the chance to pull those MU's into their favour via Countermagic/Disruption beeing able to exist in an competetive environment.
Merfolk and Maverick with a blue splash (Bant*cough*) as the only competitors in Aggro-control seems superdumb AND unhealthy to me.
So, if Brainstorm gets banned, you have to be aware that some of the most borderline fair cards of Legacy (LED/S&T) are axed as well, which should raise the question: Why got Brainstorm banned afterall?
Non-blue decks are just so weak right now (and will be even weaker) because they are simply outclassed by having ok chances against Control and 0 against serious Combodecks.
Hope that sums it up.

[Honorik]

Someone please explain me why banning 1 card, that's not FoW, will destroy the format ?

And again - they Unbanned Time Spiral, allowing High Tide to come, so why not unban recruiter ?

[Kich867]

Take a deck that doesn't have Brainstorm and add Brainstorm. See if it's better. Most of the time, I believe that it will be. Exceptions exist, obviously, but it's hard to say that GW Maverick is better than Maverick with Brainstorm and Force (aka Bant Aggro).

I think that's a gross oversimplification of what splashing blue for force and brainstorm actually means to Maverick. You'd be pretty much forced to say goodbye to what makes the deck the deck, I mean..what would you remove from the deck to fit the 18-20 blue cards you want to support force? Would that deck even be able to be called Maverick afterward?

Bant fell apart after MM got banned because it was relatively unharmed by the card and could use it well. It suffers from what imo, splashing blue in maverick would be trying to do--pack too much shit into one deck. At the end of the day, it's unfocused and clunky that can't do any one specific thing well.

[CorpT]

I think that's a gross oversimplification of what splashing blue for force and brainstorm actually means to Maverick. You'd be pretty much forced to say goodbye to what makes the deck the deck, I mean..what would you remove from the deck to fit the 18-20 blue cards you want to support force? Would that deck even be able to be called Maverick afterward?

Bant fell apart after MM got banned because it was relatively unharmed by the card and could use it well. It suffers from what imo, splashing blue in maverick would be trying to do--pack too much shit into one deck. At the end of the day, it's unfocused and clunky that can't do any one specific thing well.

You mean like these?

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7118&iddeck=51704
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7075&iddeck=51360
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7075&iddeck=51361
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7050&iddeck=51150
http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=7050&iddeck=51145

Yes, these are not Maverick. These are the evolution of Maverick replacing Brainstorm for more situational cards.

[Kich867]

Yes, these are not Maverick. These are the evolution of Maverick replacing Brainstorm for more situational cards.

Right, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this. Four of those aren't even close to maverick and the only one that is doesn't fall under the criteria of what I was talking about.

I used a hyperbole, thanks for the "Gotcha!" on that. Burn is kind of a shitty deck, are you going to go flipping through pages to find a few high placing burn decks? They're there.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Saying that adding blue to Maverick makes it a different deck doesn't mean that the new deck isn't better than the old one.

[Kich867]

Saying that adding blue to Maverick makes it a different deck doesn't mean that the new deck isn't better than the old one.

Ok.

[CorpT]

Ok.

On top of what IBA said, you said that Bant was dead. Clearly, it is not. Those are results from the last two SCG and GP:Amsterdam. I think that's pretty good evidence for Bant to be doing pretty well post-MM. Not clunky and un-focused. Or at least not so clunky that Brainstorm can't fix it.

[joemauer]

Maverick has been a Deck to Beat for awhile now, and Bant has not been a Deck to Beat for awhile(maybe ever?).

So is the deck without brainstorm the better one or not?

[CorpT]

Maverick has been a Deck to Beat for awhile now, and Bant has not been a Deck to Beat for awhile(maybe ever?).

So is the deck without brainstorm the better one or not?

Since Innistrad:

These are the decks in the SCG database with Knight, Noble and 0 Brainstorm or Wild Nacatl (to exclude Zoo decks):
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=2011-08-21&end_date=2011-11-13&comparison[1]=%3E%3D&card_qty[1]=1&card_name[1]=Noble+Hierarch&comparison[2]=%3E%3D&card_qty[2]=1&card_name[2]=Knight+of+the+Reliquary&card_not[1]=Brainstorm&card_not[2]=Wild+Nacatl

These are the decks in the SCG database with Knight, Noble and Brainstorm:
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=2011-10-02&end_date=2011-11-13&comparison[1]=%3E%3D&card_qty[1]=1&card_name[1]=Noble+Hierarch&comparison[2]=%3E%3D&card_qty[2]=1&card_name[2]=Knight+of+the+Reliquary&comparison[3]=%3E%3D&card_qty[3]=1&card_name[3]=Brainstorm

You tell me.

[joemauer]

Since Innistrad:

These are the decks in the SCG database with Knight, Noble and 0 Brainstorm or Wild Nacatl (to exclude Zoo decks):
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=2011-08-21&end_date=2011-11-13&comparison[1]=%3E%3D&card_qty[1]=1&card_name[1]=Noble+Hierarch&comparison[2]=%3E%3D&card_qty[2]=1&card_name[2]=Knight+of+the+Reliquary&card_not[1]=Brainstorm&card_not[2]=Wild+Nacatl

These are the decks in the SCG database with Knight, Noble and Brainstorm:
http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=2011-10-02&end_date=2011-11-13&comparison[1]=%3E%3D&card_qty[1]=1&card_name[1]=Noble+Hierarch&comparison[2]=%3E%3D&card_qty[2]=1&card_name[2]=Knight+of+the+Reliquary&comparison[3]=%3E%3D&card_qty[3]=1&card_name[3]=Brainstorm

You tell me.

I'm not a starcity premium member, so I will have to take your word for it.

[CorpT]

I'm not a starcity premium member, so I will have to take your word for it.

That link didn't work?

To recap:
Knight, Noble + Brainstorm have 10 Top 16s with generally higher placings, including winning GP:Amsterdam.

Knight, Noble - Brainstorm have 7 Top 16s with generally lower placings, several adding Red for Punishing Fire.

Bant Stoneblade 1st place Pierre Sommen Grand Prix
NO Bant 2nd place Marsh Usary StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-10-02
Bant Stoneblade 5th place Alex Bertoncini StarCityGames.com Legacy Open
Bant Aggro 6th place Joel Wright StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-10-09
Bant 6th place John Petterson StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-10-30
Bant 6th place Maciej Pasek Grand Prix 2011-10-23 Amsterdam, Netherlands
Bant Stoneblade 7th place Alex Bertoncini StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-11-06
Bant Aggro 8th place Florian Nolting StarCityGames.com Invitational Qualifier 2011-10-02
NO Bant 9th place Joshua Verdell StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-10-09


Naya Stoneblade 5th place Fabian Gorzgen Grand Prix 2011-10-23
Bant Stoneblade 6th place Jacob Kory StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-11-06
G/W Stoneblade 9th place Art Macurda StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-11-06
Naya Stoneblade 9th place Sami Valkamaa Grand Prix 2011-10-23
G/W Stoneblade 9th place Daniel Potter StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-09-11
G/W Aggro 16th place Kurt Speiss StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-10-23
G/W Stoneblade 19th place Tobias Irrgang Grand Prix 2011-10-23
Bant Stoneblade 10th place Gabriel Wilson StarCityGames.com Legacy Open 2011-11-06

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There's basically very little reason to go two color in Legacy, three colors generally ends up being more stable in function. Especially if one of those three colors is blue.

Like Knight of the Reliquary is a really good card, it's a lot better with blue.

[Kich867]

On top of what IBA said, you said that Bant was dead. Clearly, it is not. Those are results from the last two SCG and GP:Amsterdam. I think that's pretty good evidence for Bant to be doing pretty well post-MM. Not clunky and un-focused. Or at least not so clunky that Brainstorm can't fix it.

What IBA said was kind of stupid since it doesn't amount to anything (although I do appreciate most of what he says as he's a very smart individual); if you add blue and change white to black or red you can't say that that deck isn't better than the white version. Conversely, if you don't do anything, you can't say that adding anything to it makes it better either.. So...what was the point there, besides, I never said Maverick would be worse off with adding blue, I was saying it wouldn't be maverick, and comparing Maverick to Bant or TA or RUG is something too difficult to just bullshit about it. In my own opinion however, I don't think adding blue adds anything to GW lists that it doesn't already have / need.

It's not correct to assume that adding blue makes any deck better, it may be the case in the large majority, but it's not a fundamental truth.

I admitted to using a hyperbole, but I didn't say Bant was dead, if anything that's more of a hyperbole than I used.

[Admiral_Arzar]

@Avatar of Shadow/whiners:
If Brainstorm gets banned I would have a damn hard time playing Legacy at all, mainly because nonblue decks really are unplayable then.

I hate to bump this thread, but posts like this piss me the fuck off. Every chicken little on the internet thinks that combo winter will happen immediately if Brainstorm is banned, which is not true. I'm getting really fucking tired of explaining to people that don't have a clue how combo works that Brainstorm is BETTER in combo than it is in any traditional blue deck. Most combo decks hate drawing multiples of a lot of cards (more than one Emrakul in SnT, more than one Infernal Tutor in TES), and have cards you rarely want to draw normally pre-combo (Tendrils in TES, Zenith in Spiral Tide, Progenitus in any NO deck, IGG or Tendrils in Doomsday, I could go on all fucking day here). The ability to put back these duplicates or unwanted dead cards and shuffle is ESSENTIAL in every blue-based combo deck, and all of these decks would take a massive hit if Brainstorm was banned.

Also, I will slap the next person that claims Belcher or SI would dominate in post-brainstorm ban land with my dick. Those decks are massively inconsistent, and both lose to FOW, Mindbreak Trap, and a million other hate cards almost as often as they lose to their own internal consistency issues.

/rant

[DragoFireheart]

@Admiral_Arzar: Which decks would be hurt more by the banning of brainstorm?

Blue-based combo decks?

OR

Blue aggro-control / control decks?

[Admiral_Arzar]

@Admiral_Arzar: Which decks would be hurt more by the banning of brainstorm?

Blue-based combo decks?

OR

Blue aggro-control / control decks?


Brainstorm is BETTER in combo than it is in any traditional blue deck.

Not sure if you're trolling or just not reading my posts...

[CorpT]

Not sure if you're trolling or just not reading my posts...

Usually both. He'll play this game with you for as long as you play along where he keeps asking questions you've already answered trying to trick you into saying something so that he can say "Ah-ha! Gotcha!" and prove something completely irrelevant.

[Hoojo]

Usually both. He'll play this game with you for as long as you play along where he keeps asking questions you've already answered trying to trick you into saying something so that he can say "Ah-ha! Gotcha!" and prove something completely irrelevant.

Then he'll say "about Tree Fiddy."

[Koby]

What IBA said was kind of stupid since it doesn't amount to anything (although I do appreciate most of what he says as he's a very smart individual); if you add blue and change white to black or red you can't say that that deck isn't better than the white version. Conversely, if you don't do anything, you can't say that adding anything to it makes it better either.. So...what was the point there, besides, I never said Maverick would be worse off with adding blue, I was saying it wouldn't be maverick, and comparing Maverick to Bant or TA or RUG is something too difficult to just bullshit about it. In my own opinion however, I don't think adding blue adds anything to GW lists that it doesn't already have / need.

It's not correct to assume that adding blue makes any deck better, it may be the case in the large majority, but it's not a fundamental truth.

I admitted to using a hyperbole, but I didn't say Bant was dead, if anything that's more of a hyperbole than I used.

Having played both, I tend to agree that GW shell is self-sufficient and doesn't need any additional help from Brainstorm, and certainly not Force of Will.

Rynkiewicz's No FoW is a good example of such a deck that only needs a small Blue splash. Without Mental Misstep's help, I'd say that the addition of Blue is further diminished. This also doesn't take into account that by adding Blue duals the deck is now vulnerable to Merfolk (even if it is a bad deck, it's still one of the most played decks).

With the Blue threshold being at 17-18 to turn on FoW, you end up needing to pitch GOOD blue cards to cast Force. In this aspect it's used more as a tempo counterspell rather than to actively control the game.

If the goal is to defeat other decks as a mid-range deck, then Force of Will is not a good candidate.
If the goal is to defeat other combo decks, then Bant is not a good candidate.
If the goal is to defeat Merfolk, then Blue duals is not a good candidate.

Splashing Brainstorm, while good in theory for GW decks, plays out rather poorly. The only cards the deck doesn't want to see multiples are of extra mana sources. Even extra Noble Hierarchs gives you more attack power. GSZ largely solved the low card quality issue the deck has experienced before. That was the last time I played with Brainstorm in the deck.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Before Portent was re-discovered and then obsoleted by Ponder and Preordain and a lot of other blue cards like Spell Snare, Spell Pierce, Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage, etc., people might've had some basis for saying blue would suck without Brainstorm if they were perhaps unaware that Force of Will existed.

As it is? Brainstorm would tamp the power level down but it wouldn't wreck blue at all. Blue post-Brainstorm would move from being clearly the dominant color to being clearly still the best color but not that much stronger than everything else.

eta: Like, blue wasn't anywhere nearly as widely played as it is now in 2009, and in 2007 it was less played than in 2009, and so on to the back of the format's creation. But barring the anomalies of Hulk-Flash month and Vengevival, combo decks have never dominated tournaments. That's because even when only maybe 30-40% of decks were running blue, that was still enough to make fragile strategies a bad idea (especially when a bunch of others are running discard or sideboard hate etc., or just cards that randomly happen to wreck some piece of your combo.)

[I am the brainwasher]

@IBA:
Yes sure and Brainstorm is the only wrong factor in this equation of Legacy... .
I am truly confused how someone that spends so much time on the game and makes an overall competent impression in terms of forum activities is still convinced that the single Banning of Brainstorm will create something like a healthy magic-meta-wonderland.
If the power of the blue color in Magic is only based upon Brainstorm (well, thats what you at least try to sale everyone) and would go down to an equal level with removing it from it, I could simply see myself agree on several points you made, but this is simply not true.
As long as a deck has only the power of filtering in form Ponder and Brainstorm it is not unbalanced in terms of powerlevel because of those (this) card(s). The cards that floats around those are the problem.
Knight of the Reliquary, Jace TMS, Tarmogoyf/SFM + Removal IS BEATABLE FOR NONBLUE DECKS.
S&T and Reanimator ARE MOSTLY NOT BEATABLE FOR NONBLUE DECKS. Having (at least) 8 virtual Brainstorms/Spotremoval for CC1 + a body for 3 Mana IS ALSO NOT BEATABLE FOR MOST NONBLUEDECKS.
Blaming Brainstorm for having the option in blue decks to filter their hand might seem smart because Legacy alsmost means playing 2/3 color if you are playing Brainstorm (which is easily doable due to Duals/Fetches) but you are not even thinking about saying a word about which cards might have become so dang powerful that such an unbalance, due to Brainstorms fault, is the normal consens atm.
Brainstorm just would start a avalanche of further bannings which would leave Legacy in a modern-like situation, plus beeing also left in a Vintage-like spot.
Legacy has no Mystical Tutor, no Walk, no Call nor Demonic or Vampiric which could justify a banning of Brainstorm, but currently Legacy has too many Oath/Tinker cards without having a healthy counterweight which Vintage has somehow.
I dont know if you have no clue about the different formats or what is really going on right now but you are so much on the wrong line and dont even recognize it that it makes me worry about having a serious conversation at all. Nothing personal, but thats some kind of must-conclusion after reading your recent posts.

[Koby]

I'm adding some more elements for analysis. This one is a bit spotty, but at least its consistent.

Decks in T16 from TCdecks database, showing first 100 hits for:

Decks with KotR+Hierarch -Brainstorm -Wild Nacatl (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=1&ylow=2011&dhigh=14&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&pos2=on&pos34=on&pos58=on&pos916=on&main=knight+of+the+reliquary%3B+noble+hierarch&nomain=brainstorm%3B+wild+nacatl&side=&noside=&strict=on) #100 is on August 13th. Average finish: 4.35. Median: 4. Mode: 1.

Decks with KotR+Hierarch+Brainstorm -Wild Nacatl (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/busqueda.php?token=Decks&tname=&nlow=0&nhigh=0&dlow=1&mlow=1&ylow=2011&dhigh=14&mhigh=11&yhigh=2011&player=&dname=&format=Legacy&aname=&pos1=on&pos2=on&pos34=on&pos58=on&pos916=on&main=knight+of+the+reliquary%3B+noble+hierarch%3B+brainstorm&nomain=wild+nacatl&side=&noside=&strict=on) #100 is on May 30th. Average finish 4.05. Median: 3. Mode: 1.

This only shows us the frequency of decks, not the strength of the decks in the field, or even paired against each other. I am inclined to think that 3c decks relying on numerous dual lands, a low land count (under 22), and playing with FoW will tend to fall apart to decks with KotR. This is based upon observation from my own run with the GW deck.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

@IBA:
Yes sure and Brainstorm is the only wrong factor in this equation of Legacy... .
I am truly confused how someone that spends so much time on the game and makes an overall competent impression in terms of forum activities is still convinced that the single Banning of Brainstorm will create something like a healthy magic-meta-wonderland.
If the power of the blue color in Magic is only based upon Brainstorm (well, thats what you at least try to sale everyone) and would go down to an equal level with removing it from it, I could simply see myself agree on several points you made, but this is simply not true.
As long as a deck has only the power of filtering in form Ponder and Brainstorm it is not unbalanced in terms of powerlevel because of those (this) card(s). The cards that floats around those are the problem.
Knight of the Reliquary, Jace TMS, Tarmogoyf/SFM + Removal IS BEATABLE FOR NONBLUE DECKS.
S&T and Reanimator ARE MOSTLY NOT BEATABLE FOR NONBLUE DECKS. Having (at least) 8 virtual Brainstorms/Spotremoval for CC1 + a body for 3 Mana IS ALSO NOT BEATABLE FOR MOST NONBLUEDECKS.
Blaming Brainstorm for having the option in blue decks to filter their hand might seem smart because Legacy alsmost means playing 2/3 color if you are playing Brainstorm (which is easily doable due to Duals/Fetches) but you are not even thinking about saying a word about which cards might have become so dang powerful that such an unbalance, due to Brainstorms fault, is the normal consens atm.
Brainstorm just would start a avalanche of further bannings which would leave Legacy in a modern-like situation, plus beeing also left in a Vintage-like spot.
Legacy has no Mystical Tutor, no Walk, no Call nor Demonic or Vampiric which could justify a banning of Brainstorm, but currently Legacy has too many Oath/Tinker cards without having a healthy counterweight which Vintage has somehow.
I dont know if you have no clue about the different formats or what is really going on right now but you are so much on the wrong line and dont even recognize it that it makes me worry about having a serious conversation at all. Nothing personal, but thats some kind of must-conclusion after reading your recent posts.

This seems more a rant than an argument. SNT is incredibly vulnerable to both counters and discard, the latter much more so without being able to play Brainstorm itself; nor does Reanimator beat all non blue decks. In fact it has a great deal of trouble with a deck like Zoo.

And not only did I not say that banning Brainstorm would make blue exactly the same power level as all the other cards, I said the exact opposite. In the post that immediately preceded your own.

And certainly Snapcaster Mage isn't some unstoppable force that non-blue decks can't handle.

Frankly I have no idea what you're talking about.

[CorpT]

A quick check on some of those decks reveals (IMO) one of the flaws with TC Decks. There are a whole bunch of 20-30 person tournament results in there. I just don't think those should count for about anything when looking at results. Our FNMs are quite a bit bigger than that and I wouldn't use LGS FNM results to predict anything about the meta.

[Koby]

A quick check on some of those decks reveals (IMO) one of the flaws with TC Decks. There are a whole bunch of 20-30 person tournament results in there. I just don't think those should count for about anything when looking at results. Our FNMs are quite a bit bigger than that and I wouldn't use LGS FNM results to predict anything about the meta.

I stated the the data was spotty. It's still a good amount of data, since just looking at huge events (>100 for instance), we only have a handful to look at, and most of them are in-bred (SCG). The more important point should be popping out that while the sample size for "Bant" is less frequent, its results are slightly better than Maverick. This corroborates IBA's graphs from the opening post - that decks with Brainstorm tend to place better in events than decks w/o.

[CorpT]

I stated the the data was spotty. It's still a good amount of data, since just looking at huge events (>100 for instance), we only have a handful to look at, and most of them are in-bred (SCG). The more important point should be popping out that while the sample size for "Bant" is less frequent, its results are slightly better than Maverick. This corroborates IBA's graphs from the opening post - that decks with Brainstorm tend to place better in events than decks w/o.

That's the general conclusion I'm coming to as well. If you're aiming to 6-3 a SCG or GP, Maverick is probably a great choice because it is a solid deck that is going to pick up a few losses to weird hands or bad matchups. If you're looking to win an event, Bant is probably better because Brainstorm is going to smooth out those weird hands.

[I am the brainwasher]

I kinda saw that one coming:rolleyes:.
I dont know whos to blame on that, maybe it is my average english or you are really not getting what I was trying to say with my post, maybe a combination of both these factors... .
What I am basically trying to say is that your conclusion of Banning Brainstorm = fix the format is wrong for several reasons. Starting with one of them, that all different kind of combo-decks are as much affected by Brainstorms banning as Control/Aggrocontrol decks are, seems incorrect to me.
The thought behind that might be (correct me if I got that wrong) that the Combo/Controlish decks which actually use Brainstorm would neuter eachother out to the point where non-blue decks (or non-Brainstorm) have an equal role in the metagame, based upon the sunken powerlevel of the two "archetypes" mentioned above.
This is some kind of wishful thinking to me. Most of the decks which use Brainstorm right now can be distinguished into those which really rely on Brainstorm and those who use it because it is the most powerful thing that is available for their filtering process.
Most decks which fall into category 2 are combo decks, most which can be summed up for the first one are Control/Aggrocontrol decks.
The different role Brainstorm has in them is significant and so I was naturally confused how a player of your format could throw them all together into one pot.
For example, if this statement still isnt making any sense to you, imagine Landstill/Countertop or Threshold without Brainstorm; now do the same for Reanimator, Hive Mind and Storm-based combodecks. Which of those decks could easily adapt and which cant? Please do not tell me that there is a huge difference going on here.
Most control decks only exist because they are able to fix their hand for turns (especially the early) and dont depend on their opening 7, which is quite fair in comparison to other decks card availability.
Whats wrong with that is that the last sets/printings really pushed you into blue because the combination of different cards really outclassed different strategies, as said in the last comment, 4 StP and Brainstorms are completely fine, having more of those without having an actual drawback (MM, Snapcaster) is just wrong, but thats not the fault of Brainstorm. Best comment on that that I red so far was that brainstorm could be in the wrong place at the wrong time right now, which sadly might be true.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's simply nonsensical to say that control and aggro-control strategies need Brainstorm more than combo. Combo generally, by its very nature, has far more situational cards it doesn't want to see in multiples, and needs to find specific cards to work.

The idea that aggro-control strategies need Brainstorm more than combo seems purely speculative to me, and not well grounded in fact.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Starting with one of them, that all different kind of combo-decks are as much affected by Brainstorms banning as Control/Aggrocontrol decks are, seems incorrect to me.



Since you obviously don't read my posts, and/or apparently don't have a fucking clue how combo decks work, I'm going to quote myself for your benefit and perusal:


I'm getting really fucking tired of explaining to people that don't have a clue how combo works that Brainstorm is BETTER in combo than it is in any traditional blue deck. Most combo decks hate drawing multiples of a lot of cards (more than one Emrakul in SnT, more than one Infernal Tutor in TES), and have cards you rarely want to draw normally pre-combo (Tendrils in TES, Zenith in Spiral Tide, Progenitus in any NO deck, IGG or Tendrils in Doomsday, I could go on all fucking day here). The ability to put back these duplicates or unwanted dead cards and shuffle is ESSENTIAL in every blue-based combo deck, and all of these decks would take a massive hit if Brainstorm was banned.



Note that "blue-based combo deck" encompasses all of the good combo decks, with the possible exception of that NO/Hulk deck (which suffers severe inconsistency because of the lack of Brainstorm actually). Before you accuse me of not playing blue decks, note that I have played Canadian Thresh, Dreadstill, Team America, etc.

EDIT: Adding this in now so I don't have to later. Note that hiding crucial cards from discard is much more important in linear combo strategies than it is in any blue-based control or aggro-control list, as those decks are generally quite a bit more redundant. Who cares if they discard a counterspell, you probably have more. On the contrary, if they discard my only High Tide, I'm not going off until I find another one. Same goes for Burning Wish/Infernal Tutor in storm decks, or Show and Tell in those lists. I have won a ton of games against Hymn.dec with Spiral Tide simply by Brainstorming my High Tides and Time Spirals on top of my library, and then going off when they run out of disruption.

[DragoFireheart]

Not sure if you're trolling or just not reading my posts...

I missed that. My bad.


It's simply nonsensical to say that control and aggro-control strategies need Brainstorm more than combo. Combo generally, by its very nature, has far more situational cards it doesn't want to see in multiples, and needs to find specific cards to work.

The idea that aggro-control strategies need Brainstorm more than combo seems purely speculative to me, and not well grounded in fact.

If banning brainstorm hurts combo more than it would hurt blue aggro-control/aggro, then it's that more reason not to ban it? We are trying to weaken the blue aggro-control decks and not the blue combo decks... right?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It is probably not a coincidence that as Brainstorm's penetration of the field increases in rank advancement, black's similar rise suddenly halts and goes mound shaped; a well-timed Brainstorm turns a Thoughtseize into a bad Blackmail. Brainstorm being banned would probably do more than anything else could to make discard and thus black a lot better in the format. Which might make Jund- and Junk-colored decks viable in the meta, which would diversify it significantly.

[Zunam]

... or Junk decks will push the remaining Blue decks mostly out of the Meta... who knows.
How do you come to the conclusion that banning Brainstorm will lead to a more diverse Meta?
For me it looks like:
1) Combo becomes worse
2) Blue based control and Aggro-Control becomes worse
3) Junk/Jund decks become stronger

... so why would Junk/Jund not dominate 1) and 2)?

Don't get me wrong I am not necessarily pro-Brainstorm but for me there is also no indication at all that banning Brainstorm will automatically lead to Meta-Wonderland.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Well, we don't know. To even get to a point where Brainstorm wasn't at least half the top 8's we'd have to go back to the very beginnings of the format, when more than half of the most currently played cards weren't in print. We can only speculate about what a metagame without Brainstorm would look like.

But we do know that right now we are approaching, or more likely well past the point where it just doesn't make sense to play a deck without 4 Brainstorm, 4 Force, 10+ other blue cards. It seems unlikely that black-based disruption strategies would go from being nearly unplayable to being completely dominant, or that blue would likewise fall apart completely without Brainstorm. But I mean we fix one problem at a time, I've never understood the mindset of just hoping the format is always perfect forever without any effort. Wizards should be printing new cards that are influential in Legacy, and sometimes that will necessitate a banning. It's okay, your current pet deck was going to suck in a year or two anyway, just ask all the people still playing Fish lists circa 2009. Or the Goblins players still running Rishadan Port.

[Zunam]

Yes but I am not really a friend of "Ban and see what happens" especially if there is quite a chance that this can lead to "oh shit, what have we done".

Decisions should never be made like this.

In my opinion Brainstorm is really a hard card to ban because the effect of this is so hard to predict (in contrary to the banning of Survival or Mystical Tutor). Everything can happen from "Diverse Meta" to "Junk vs Junk".

Taking risks is Ok but I think taking the possible risk of completely destroying a format should not be taken that easily without at least being able to have a slight idea of what will happen.

I for myself would only pull the trigger if absolutely necessary (Heavy blue domination continues to exist for a longer time period, people stop playing Legacy...) to justify the risk.

[Namida]

I for myself would only pull the trigger if absolutely necessary (Heavy blue domination continues to exist for a longer time period, people stop playing Legacy...) to justify the risk.

If you feel that "heavy blue domination" is in any way a justifiable reason to pull the trigger...given blue's history of dominance, how much longer is that longer time period you're describing?

[Jim Higginbottom]

Why does there always have to be a card that needs banning? Legacy has become the format of chicken little, but the sky still isn't falling.

[Zunam]

Legacy has always favored Blue, that's true and that's the format that we played for years.
But all the complaints (and wave of discussions on Banning of Brainstorm) did happen right after the banning of Mental Misstep when 6-7 blue decks did start placing top 8 at SCG and GP. That was considered to much by many and that was what drove the discussions.
Going back in time to a point where not nearly as many people argued for Banning of Brainstorm is pointless in that discussion because that is exactly the reason why we are here in this thread.

That's where the "calculation of times" begins for me... Right after the reset that so many hoped to get by the Ban of MM and that now seems to have made things even worse.

[DragoFireheart]

I'd rather see cards unbanned than banning cards.

[I am the brainwasher]

@Admiral:
Sure, I do understand what a banning of Brainstorm means to stormbased combo, but it might also be true that you are missing the point right now that stormdecks are able to change as a whole and would (in my oppionion, this is all speculation afterall anyway) be a dominant factor because one of the cornerstones fell apart with the banning of Brainstorm. The whole discard argument is also only partially true because not all decks really are in a need to defend themselves with Brainstorm and got also fancy sb-options like LloS.
Reanimator for example is also not the worst if it comes down to that specific topic and couldnt be hosed as easy as Stormcombo via sb due to S&T and really isnt depending on Brainstorm as much as other decks, combo or not.
I am not saying that different Control/Tempo-strategies are completely unable to adapt also, but a lack of Brainstorm means definetly gameover for some of those completely and so further bannings need to happen to keep superdumb decks like SI and Belcher (just examples, sure not the only 2, but who am I telling this...) and some other decks in check because that literally means no "Force? Game Over!" if you arent able to dig for Daze/Fow via Brainstorm in addition. Having Merfolk as one of the only competitors in that archetype seems superdumb and weak at the same time because all those Junk/Jund/Zoo decks which might arise at the same time would stomp them miles out of the meta.
This might be a bit overeager but the scenarios of Brainstorms banning beeing THE solution is even more absurd and what will happen, who knows?
So is it better to ban a card where it is so damn unsure what will happen or banning cards like S&T where you can be quite sure what will happen to the meta, beeing more healthy because more decks are again able to play Magic?
I definetly do know the answer, seems you misunderstood me or we are definetly not in the same boat (which both is perfectly fine with me, dont get that wrong).

In general:
This is a honest and serious question to the player-basis who is for a banning of Brainstorm.
Do you think the meta will be healthy with just the banning of Brainstorm, or are there any kind of bannings where you think that those are also necessary to regulate the format?
I would apprecieate a answer that includes something more than " this we can see if it comes that far" or "it couldnt get much worse as it is right now anyway".

PS:
I really didnt ment to piss anyone off here, I am just unsatisfied with the arguments for a banning of Brainstorm and the truckload of yesayers joining the discussion without actually knowing whats going on here, folled by some numbers.

[Koby]

In general:
This is a honest and serious question to the player-basis who is for a banning of Brainstorm.
Do you think the meta will be healthy with just the banning of Brainstorm, or are there any kind of bannings where you think that those are also necessary to regulate the format?
I would apprecieate a answer that includes something more than " this we can see if it comes that far" or "it couldnt get much worse as it is right now anyway".

PS:
I really didnt ment to piss anyone off here, I am just unsatisfied with the arguments for a banning of Brainstorm and the truckload of yesayers joining the discussion without actually knowing whats going on here, folled by some numbers.

Firstly, I'm neither for nor against banning Brainstorm.

To answer your question, I think that the format will adapt in remarkable ways that even we're not able to comprehend just yet. Sure, I agree that in the first 6 months people will play their non-Brainstorm pet decks and try to win; but I doubt that the old strategies which relied on Brainstorm to fix their crappy drawsteps will survive long. Tempo decks might be able to continue winning by replacing one set of cantrips with another. Storm combo decks would also swap for other cantrips, and lose the ability to protect themselves from Black disruption. We might even see Black gain from the overall transaction.

I don't think that the metagame will dramatically shift from the tendency it has right now towards Blue, and banning Brainstorm might have nearly no effect in curbing Blue's omnipresence.

[Gheizen64]

@Admiral:
Sure, I do understand what a banning of Brainstorm means to stormbased combo, but it might also be true that you are missing the point right now that stormdecks are able to change as a whole and would (in my oppionion, this is all speculation afterall anyway) be a dominant factor because one of the cornerstones fell apart with the banning of Brainstorm. The whole discard argument is also only partially true because not all decks really are in a need to defend themselves with Brainstorm and got also fancy sb-options like LloS.
Reanimator for example is also not the worst if it comes down to that specific topic and couldnt be hosed as easy as Stormcombo via sb due to S&T and really isnt depending on Brainstorm as much as other decks, combo or not.
I am not saying that different Control/Tempo-strategies are completely unable to adapt also, but a lack of Brainstorm means definetly gameover for some of those completely and so further bannings need to happen to keep superdumb decks like SI and Belcher (just examples, sure not the only 2, but who am I telling this...) and some other decks in check because that literally means no "Force? Game Over!" if you arent able to dig for Daze/Fow via Brainstorm in addition. Having Merfolk as one of the only competitors in that archetype seems superdumb and weak at the same time because all those Junk/Jund/Zoo decks which might arise at the same time would stomp them miles out of the meta.
This might be a bit overeager but the scenarios of Brainstorms banning beeing THE solution is even more absurd and what will happen, who knows?
So is it better to ban a card where it is so damn unsure what will happen or banning cards like S&T where you can be quite sure what will happen to the meta, beeing more healthy because more decks are again able to play Magic?
I definetly do know the answer, seems you misunderstood me or we are definetly not in the same boat (which both is perfectly fine with me, dont get that wrong).

In general:
This is a honest and serious question to the player-basis who is for a banning of Brainstorm.
Do you think the meta will be healthy with just the banning of Brainstorm, or are there any kind of bannings where you think that those are also necessary to regulate the format?
I would apprecieate a answer that includes something more than " this we can see if it comes that far" or "it couldnt get much worse as it is right now anyway".

PS:
I really didnt ment to piss anyone off here, I am just unsatisfied with the arguments for a banning of Brainstorm and the truckload of yesayers joining the discussion without actually knowing whats going on here, folled by some numbers.

Just saying. If you lose because you couldn't BS for a FoW there is only 1 possibility: your opponent won T1 on the play (EDIT spelling). Disregarding the actual chances of this happening (i think even the best SI can't sport a win percent on T1 on the play above 30%), in any situation where you could BS for a force you could also have casted a discard spell. This mean, actually, that all the situation you could stop a combo deck by using brainstorm, you could have done the same with discard. And those decks basically fold to discard since they have few tutors few win condition and zero ways to come back from a bad position. Now imagine, all those combo decks unable to hide combo pieces with brainstorm.
Now, look at those belcher and SI decks, and think even harder why they sucks, in the past, right now and forever and forevermore. The answer is in the text above. No one want to play a deck that randomly lose against a T1 play from black and blue decks and against a T2 play from every single deck (GSZ)
This is getting annoying, this combo winter argument is getting dismantled again and again, and people skip the thread and repost it again nevertheless (EDIT: actually i thought i was in another thread, nevermind that).

Pink doesn't exist, i guess.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Just saying. If you lose because you couldn't BS for a FoW there are is possibilities: your opponent won T1 on the draw. Disregarding the actual chances of this happening (i think even the best SI can't sport a win percent on T1 on the play above 30%), in any situation where you could BS for a force you could also have casted a discard spell. This mean, actually, that all the situation you could stop a combo deck by using brainstorm, you could have done the same with discard. And those decks basically fold to discard since they have few tutors few win condition and zero ways to come back from a bad position. Now imagine, all those combo decks unable to hide combo pieces with brainstorm.
Now, look at those belcher and SI decks, and think even harder why they sucks, in the past, right now and forever and forevermore. The answer is in the text above. No one want to play a deck that randomly lose against a T1 play from black and blue decks and against a T2 play from every single deck (GSZ)
This is getting annoying, this combo winter argument is getting dismantled again and again, and people skip the thread and repost it again nevertheless (EDIT: actually i thought i was in another thread, nevermind that).

Pink doesn't exist, i guess.

This. I'm pretty sure that at this point, people just don't read the explanatory posts regarding combo (from people who actually play combo), or are just plain stupid.

I don't think I would ever play SI in a tournament unless the meta was like less than 25% blue, which is highly unlikely unless they ban every tier one blue card.

[HokusSchmokus]

Or the third option:you are just wrong. Anyways I don't think discussion about brainstorm is going anywhere. Both sides have shown in multiple threads that they are not willing to be convinced in any was,so I cannot see the sense in discussing it over and over.
Personally , I am happy with legacy as it is, I think the format is healthy and diverse.I am playing 3 bigger tournaments each month and have yet to play against more than 4 brainstorm decks in a single tournament. But maybe that is only true for NRW Meta. I would be sad if Wizard was to ban the second pillar in the format in a year(survival was a bad decision,too),also because I started Legacy because of brainstorm. I would have to suck it up though. Now way I am quitting just because of that.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Or the third option:you are just wrong.

Whatever, I give up trying to talk sense into the mental degenerates in this thread.

For the record, I am not for a BS ban, although people seem to think I am for some reason.

[HokusSchmokus]

Whatever, I give up trying to talk sense into the mental degenerates in this thread.

For the record, I am not for a BS ban, although people seem to think I am for some reason.

You, Sir,are a very kind person in deed. Also I find it a good sign you want to stop talking to yourself.

[Offler]

When analyzing why to ban or not to ban a card in any format its mostly referred "its just too strong".

However such definition is not very clear.

When talking about any graphs each card has some kind of popularity, which is fairly based on its real power level, but mostly on how many people/players believe that the card is powerful or not.

Another reasons for banning are "its autoinclude" or "too easy to splash". Which is also related to the popularity.

Most players i know refer to blue cards as bad, unplayable and blue is not played here around. Then are few overpowered cards, who are always autoincluded if format allows it, but they still dont admit how powerful blue can be.

Generally i still wonder why was mental misstep banned. If it caused raise of playing brainstorm and delver of secrets, just unban it and we will get back to the beginning.

Game changes, as always did. If even Wotc cannot allow some cards to organized play they are doing it wrong. Many cards will go unnoticed just because few players won some tournaments using specific strategy, and most players are just trying to repeat their sucess instead of trying to build better strategy.

[Admiral_Arzar]

You, Sir,are a very kind person in deed. Also I find it a good sign you want to stop talking to yourself.

What the fuck is this, middle school? Can't just let me leave the thread and go recover lost brain cells, so you resort to even more childish statements than my own?

*Head asplode*




Generally i still wonder why was mental misstep banned. If it caused raise of playing brainstorm and delver of secrets, just unban it and we will get back to the beginning.


Because the format would be 100% blue decks rather than 80% blue decks if it was unbanned? Sit back, relax, put your seat backs and tray tables in the upright and locked position, and take a moment to think about the Snapcaster + MM interaction. If your mind isn't blown yet, have a Margarita and then repeat the process. It's pretty dumb, and by that I mean so ridiculous that my brain might explode thinking about it.

[HokusSchmokus]

I could simply not resist. Bad habit of Mine. Thing just is that bs is not banned yet,so we dont know what is going to happen. So there are multiple options.

BTW, the real point of my first post was that this whole discussion is senseless. Nobody is willing to be convinced, so the :laugh:next 10 pages of this thread will be exactly the same arguments over and over.
Personally I cannot find a Problem with the meta at all.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Personally I cannot find a Problem with the meta at all.

As I said, I don't support a BS ban. However, I don't think 80% + blue decks (and primarily only blue decks winning) is healthy at all. My issue is, I don't know what the proper thing to do about it might be. I'm not the "banning BS will destroy the format" kind of person. I simply don't know what the correct solution is in this situation (other than banning a couple of recently printed creatures, which seems kind of absurd - I for one would be happy to see Snapcaster banned though). It's even possible that the meta will straighten itself out after a while, although somehow I doubt that. I think that the amount of blue has become so ridiculous - and it's won so much - that it will create a positive feedback loop that encourages people to play blue until only the diehards remain playing something else (I'll probably play combo or aggro until the end of time because I don't like blue control and aggro/control, even if it's the best deck in the format).

[Zilla]

I think a strong case can be made for the banning of Brianstorm, but I can't shake the feeling that it would ultimately be bad for the format.

On the one hand, it's most certainly the culprit for blue's continuing rise towards dominance. If it weren't Delver and Snapcaster it would just be some other dumb fucking blue cards printed somewhere down the line, but ultimately Brainstorm just makes any blue deck better.

On the other hand, Brainstorm is neither a threat nor an answer. It's simply a skill-intensive card that makes decks more consistent. From an objective standpoint, that sounds pretty good for the game to me.

Personally, I'd rather see games won because decks were consistent and good choices were made by skilled players; Brainstorm makes that happen. I think that's why it's considered a pillar of Legacy, and why it draws so many players to the format.

I genuinely believe that Brainstorm's existence is a primary draw for a lot of players in Legacy. I also believe that if Brainstorm is banned, a lot of players will lose interest in the format, and that fewer new players will be drawn to it. For that reason alone, I'm against Brainstorm's banning.

I do think something needs to be done to raise the relative power level of other colors, though. I'm not going to presume to suggest specific cards, because that's WoTC's job, and generally speaking, they're good at it. If they can find a way to print objectively strong cards which punish Brainstorm and/or free counters without simultaneously strengthening blue, they'd be on the right track.

[Julian23]

I can't stress how much I agree with what Zilla said.

Regarding your point of punishing Brainstorm, I guess this is gonna be a pretty hard (and awkward) task as Brainstorm doesn't do anything broken/spectacular/special. Cards like Bridge from Below, Solitary Confinement or mechanics like Storm as much easier to punish. Why? Because those cards embody the strategy of their corresponding decks.

Brainstorm does not. It's just an overall great tactical card. It doesn't do anything broken that one could punish without punishing card-draw in general which would be really problematic to the format, I think. So the only thing to really attack is the shuffle effect as preventing the re-shuffle suddenly turns Brainstorm into just a decent card. (I guess that's just another way of saying that BS is neither an answer nor a threat.)

However, I don't see any playable cards right now (Stifle aside) that could actually do that. Why? Because you can't build your strategy on preventing shuffling because no deck in the format actually strategically relies on shuffling. A way to really hurt Brainstorm is e.g. an overall good creature that has the added bonus of hurting shuffling. Like the way QPM hurts Enchantments/Artifacts while still being useful even wo/ anything to hit.

But, I'm not sure about actually printing cards that hurt shuffling only because of Brainstorm. I mean, you can't prevent shuffling in general as it's just a fundamental part of the rules. How to resolve a Fetchland without shuffling? So basically, a card (e.g. a creature) would have to punish shuffling without preventing it. And by punishing I mean like dealing 1-2 damage per shuffle. We can argue about numbers or balance (I think 2 damage would be too much) but I hope you get the general angle I'm looking at this from.

[Koby]

But, I'm not sure about actually printing cards that hurt shuffling only because of Brainstorm. I mean, you can't prevent shuffling in general as it's just a fundamental part of the rules. How to resolve a Fetchland without shuffling? So basically, a card (e.g. a creature) would have to punish shuffling without preventing it. And by punishing I mean like dealing 1-2 damage per shuffle. We can argue about numbers or balance (I think 2 damage would be too much) but I hope you get the general angle I'm looking at this from.

Erm... that would be unintended consequences. For instance, casting Green Sun's Zenith shuffles your deck twice! Such a card does indeed exist: Psychogenic Probe. How much play does this card see? Which decks would profit from this card?

[Admiral_Arzar]

Erm... that would be unintended consequences. For instance, casting Green Sun's Zenith shuffles your deck twice! Such a card does indeed exist: Psychogenic Probe. How much play does this card see? Which decks would profit from this card?

More like:

Blue Hater RR

2/2 Creature

Whenever an opponent draws a card, *this* deals 1 damage to that player.
Whenever an opponent shuffles their library, *this* deals 1 damage to that player.

Probably ridiculously OP, but then again, so is blue, so what gives? Make it a Goblin for extra lulz.

[Esper3k]

All in on Cosi's Trickster!

[Julian23]

Erm... that would be unintended consequences. For instance, casting Green Sun's Zenith shuffles your deck twice! Such a card does indeed exist: Psychogenic Probe. How much play does this card see? Which decks would profit from this card?

Ruckus, I think you don't understand what I was talking about. Probe is exactly what I was not talking about. I already explained why it doesn't see play, it's just no Qasali-Pridemage. It attacks a strategy that is based on shuffling, which doesn't exist. What I'm actually talking about are cards that are decent by theirselves (prime exaple QPM) while having the added bonus of hurting shuffling.

[rufus]

Brainstorm does not. It's just an overall great tactical card. It doesn't do anything broken that one could punish without punishing card-draw in general which would be really problematic to the format, I think. So the only thing to really attack is the shuffle effect as preventing the re-shuffle suddenly turns Brainstorm into just a decent card. (I guess that's just another way of saying that BS is neither an answer nor a threat.)


I'm not sure why punishing or limiting card draw or hand sculpting has to be that problematic:

Players can't draw more than one card each turn
Whenever a player would draw a card, that player draws two cards, and discards one at random
Whenever a player draws a card, that player takes 1 damage
Whenever a player would draw a card, all players draws a card instead
Whenever an opponent draws a card put a counter on {this}. Remove 5 counters from {this} and sacrifice it: Draw 7 cards.
Whenever a player would draw a card, that player puts the cards from his or her hand on the bottom of his or her library, and draws that many cards plus one instead.
...

[Julian23]

These are decent suggestions but putting such strong restrictions on a card that's actually playable by itself might hinder card-draw oriented strategies too much. I don't know. Do you know?

Mephisto Pridemage - :1::r:
Haste
Whenever a player would draw a card, that player draws two cards, and discards one at random
2/1

I'm not trying to actually discuss this card's power-level. Don't say something idiotic like "lolol Dredge would love this". That's not my point. My point is: do you agree that Brainstorm is a tactical card and therefor can't be attacked on a strategical level like you do against e.g. Storm? Do you also agree that thus the only way to actually "punish" Brainstorm is by having cards that are good on their own? If so, how could that be done without breaking the game in half. A card like the one I posted would be something that - even without brainstorm - increases the luck factor to a level I would consider inappropriate when it comes to competitive gaming. Maybe.

That's why its so card to do something about Brainstorm. It does something that is a essential part of every deck, so one has to be careful about punishing it.

[Mosesthecoot]

the number crunch of what the most popular cards actually are (though as I recall the top 3 end up being Brainstorm, Force of Will, and probably Polluted Delta

I think that they're popular just because blue has always been popular. If you're running blue, you're running these two if not three cards 99% of the time. Just because they're fantastic cards doesn't mean they should be banned. Wotc loves pushing standard but there are always similar decks in top 16s. I don't follow it often but I remember Jund being pretty annoying to players awhile back and nothing got banned as far as I know. Same with legacy. You print powerful cards, the people that buy your cards are going to realize this and take advantage. Common sense.

Diversity is important but some cards are just auto-includes. Its just how it is. Same reason why vintage plays every mox just because it's ridiculously good to have 5 mana turn 1....

[Koby]

Ruckus, I think you don't understand what I was talking about. Probe is exactly what I was not talking about. I already explained why it doesn't see play, it's just no Qasali-Pridemage. It attacks a strategy that is based on shuffling, which doesn't exist. What I'm actually talking about are cards that are decent by theirselves (prime exaple QPM) while having the added bonus of hurting shuffling.

I understood it clearly, but when talking about Brainstorm decks, and moreso recently - being a creature is an increasing liability than being an artifact. I don't think at all Psychogenic Probe is playable in Legacy, and even recent examples of reactionary hate-bears are fucking terrible (Tunnel Ingus, what a waste of cardboard).

What about Leonin Arbiter combined with Suppression Field? We as a community keep identifying the taxing strategy as possible solution to fetchlands, but it never seems to actually stick.

Maralen of the Mornsong
Leonin Arbiter
Aven Mindcensor

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's certainly true that people go to Legacy to play iconic old cards, but this is precisely why I don't agree with doing as Zilla has suggested. Ultimately, Wizards can't print more Legacy cards; they can only print Modern cards that are Legacy playable. Even in some special Legacy-only time capsule like Commander, it doesn't affect Legacy's brand. Legacy's appeal rests solely on those cards that are not available in Modern; it is a set and fixed number.

And because of that, I'm very sympathetic to the idea that older cards should require more hoops to be banned. Flash might be an exception because it was never played outside of the errata, but I would certainly rather unban Mystical Tutor and ban Ad Nauseum if that card becomes a problem, or unban Survival and ban Vengevine.

And maybe it makes more sense for the same reason to ban something other than Brainstorm to curb blue's dominance, although I'm not clear what. But it certainly doesn't make sense to open the floodgates on power creep and inundate the other colors with entirely new cards that are also available in Standard. As much as banning Brainstorm would kill some of Legacy's appeal, it would kill a lot more to have Legacy be a format where the only cards that get played that aren't Modern-legal are Brainstorm and Force and I guess Daze.

Now there may be some small cards that give other colors a bit of flexibility lower on the cost curve that won't dominate newer formats, or obsolete current strategies, but which lend vitality to other colors; I'm certainly not opposed to giving other colors more nuts-and-bolts type of cards; Alix Hatfield recently summed it up that blue just has a better grip on the fundamentals of the game, which is true and a point that needs some redressing. But power creep by itself is no fix to the blue problem.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

All in on Cosi's Trickster!

I'm actually wondering why, besides the apparent inability of Merfolk players to ever adapt, no one's seemingly even tried this card again. I mean yes it wasn't great when people tried it fresh out of Zendikar, but since then we've seen Stoneforge Mystic and Green Sun's Zenith coming out. Seems a damn sight better than Cursecatcher anyway.

[Admiral_Arzar]

I'm actually wondering why, besides the apparent inability of Merfolk players to ever adapt, no one's seemingly even tried this card again. I mean yes it wasn't great when people tried it fresh out of Zendikar, but since then we've seen Stoneforge Mystic and Green Sun's Zenith coming out. Seems a damn sight better than Cursecatcher anyway.

At least it's better than Merfolk of the Pearl Trident, which I saw in some lists and threads during the Misstep era...

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

At least it's better than Merfolk of the Pearl Trident, which I saw in some lists and threads during the Misstep era...

Christ, really?

I mean so is Merfolk Spy. To say nothing of Skywatcher Adept...

eta: Actually at this point in the meta, Skywatcher's also probably better than Cursecatcher. No one plays Wrath or even Firespout anymore, as far as I can tell, and it blocks Delvers at least.

[Rizso]

Anti-brainstorm black instant:
Crash of Insanity
Instant B
Until the end of the turn, if a spell or ability would make a player draw a card that player draws a card and discards a card instead.
Cycling B

R
Counter target spell or a ability that would make a player draw a card. If a permanent's ability is countered this way, destroy that permanent. Draw a card.
Cycling R

Green hatebear for brainstorm
2/2 1G
Flash
If a player would draw a card with a spell or ability, he or she returns a land instead. If the player returns a land this way, he or she draws a card.

Other effect it could have is
If a spell or ability would draw a card, each players draws cards instead.

Yes, thoes effects will be harsh against brainstorm and jace.

[DrJones]

There's already plenty of cards in legacy that are effective against Brainstorm.
The problem is that these cards aren't effective against blue.
More specifically, these cards tend to get countered by free counterspells.

So in sum, their only purpose is to have the opponent waste a counterspell on them, which is something you could also accomplish by playing duress, or even better, an actual good card that the opponent must counter or risk losing the game.

I like how that analysis shows that FoW ranks better than brainstorm when ranking the performance in SCG Opens. Dudes, that's the real culcript. How can you hate a deck when it can run 4-8 free spells that say that you can't hate it? How can you race a deck that timewalks you when it counters your cards for free?

Here's a list of nonblue cards that might be good against brainstorm if blue hadn't so many free counters:

Hidden Gibbons
Chalice of the Void
Runeflare Trap
Chains of Mephistopheles
Trinisphere
Burnout

Even then, note how these cards fall in two categories:
1. cards that are completely narrow and useless unless the opponent happens to cast brainstorm, and even in that case, aren't particularly impressive.
2. cards that impose serious deckbuilding restrictions that makes countering them a really good deal.

To complete the list, we have these jokes that R&D prints from time to time to keep blue in check and that nobody would play even in a guaranteed 100% blue meta:
Eyes of the Wisent
Seedtime
Great Sable Stag.

So, the only method to balance blue is to ban blue cards. This has the risk of killing legacy because the people that don't play blue decks already left the format two years ago bored to tears, but there's hope that if R&D bans enough cards to make this "toxic playerbase" (as in Forsythe's words) angry enough to leave the game and go play poker, tons of people would return.

[Rizso]

There's already plenty of cards in legacy that are effective against Brainstorm.
The problem is that these cards aren't effective against blue.
More specifically, these cards tend to get countered by free counterspells.

So in sum, their only purpose is to have the opponent waste a counterspell on them, which is something you could also accomplish by playing duress, or even better, an actual good card that the opponent must counter or risk losing the game.

I like how that analysis shows that FoW ranks better than brainstorm when ranking the performance in SCG Opens. Dudes, that's the real culcript. How can you hate a deck when it can run 4-8 free spells that say that you can't hate it? How can you race a deck that timewalks you when it counters your cards for free?

Here's a list of nonblue cards that might be good against brainstorm if blue hadn't so many free counters:

Hidden Gibbons
Chalice of the Void
Runeflare Trap
Chains of Mephistopheles
Trinisphere
Burnout

Even then, note how these cards fall in two categories:
1. cards that are completely narrow and useless unless the opponent happens to cast brainstorm, and even in that case, aren't particularly impressive.
2. cards that impose serious deckbuilding restrictions that makes countering them a really good deal.

To complete the list, we have these jokes that R&D prints from time to time to keep blue in check and that nobody would play even in a guaranteed 100% blue meta:
Eyes of the Wisent
Seedtime
Great Sable Stag.

So, the only method to balance blue is to ban blue cards. This has the risk of killing legacy because the people that don't play blue decks already left the format two years ago bored to tears, but there's hope that if R&D bans enough cards to make this "toxic playerbase" (as in Forsythe's words) angry enough to leave the game and go play poker, tons of people would return.

On the flaws on the cards that are suppost to punish blue seedtime, Stag and eyes are they are to weak at it. Eyes is only on your turn same with seed. If that sentence wouldnt be there im quite sure they would see play.

Only real anti blue cards that are seeing play is the Pyroblast and REB. Cheap and reliable. Seedtime doesnt do anything if they dont play spells durring your turn.. same with Eyes. Stag is just to weak for legacy play. Swords or bolts will take care of that creature with little problem. Stagg did fix do alot for standard when faeries where everywhere. But stag isnt close to the creature standards in legacy atm.

If they would be printing a seedtime now without a turn limit it would see alot of board play.

[UnderwaterGuy]

On the flaws on the cards that are suppost to punish blue seedtime, Stag and eyes are they are to weak at it. Eyes is only on your turn same with seed. If that sentence wouldnt be there im quite sure they would see play.

Only real anti blue cards that are seeing play is the Pyroblast and REB. Cheap and reliable. Seedtime doesnt do anything if they dont play spells durring your turn.. same with Eyes. Stag is just to weak for legacy play. Swords or bolts will take care of that creature with little problem. Stagg did fix do alot for standard when faeries where everywhere. But stag isnt close to the creature standards in legacy atm.

If they would be printing a seedtime now without a turn limit it would see alot of board play.

No shit it would see a lot of play, it would be a fucking functional reprint of Time Walk.

Specific hate cards stronger than stuff like Boil and Choke are terrible ideas. Bleeding powerful abilities to other colors is the only effective way to prevent blue from being the best color. As it is, blue has the most useful possibilities and as long as you splash an additional color or two you are set. Other colors need similar capabilities in order to be as viable as blue.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Other colors don't need Brainstorm "hate." The very concept is actually kind of absurd. Other colors need cards that fulfill the same function of fixing your fundamentals at a very low cost, so that their games will play out more smoothly. They also need cards that are versatile and cheap/have alternate casting costs like Daze and Force, but the first is more important.

I don't like card creation threads generally because they tend to get silly and unrealistic, but some rough ideas:

1cc good Cantrips/card advantage:
A white or green spell that searches your library for a 1cc creature and puts it into play with a +1/+1 counter.
A white or green spell that lets you put a 3cc or less creature from your hand into play and then draws a card.
A white spell that says, "Until end of turn, whenever you're dealt damage draw that many cards."
A red spell that searches your library for three different cards, puts one at random into your hand and the others on the bottom of your library.
A black spell that lets you pay X life to scry X and then draw a card.
A black spell that draws you cards and loses you life equal to half the number of swamps you control, rounded up.

Some cards it would be nice to see in pitch/alternate casting cost form:
A shatterbolt/card that either destroys an artifact or does some damage.
Some decent beaters in every color.
A black spell that destroys a creature or planeswalker.

It would also be nice to see counters bleed a little bit into other colors, since you know they've printed fucking Delver and all.

Also if they could unban Survival and ban Vengevine instead that would give green a big boost.

[UnderwaterGuy]

Plunge into Darkness is essentially the same as that black scry card you suggested.

You're on the money about Survival too but I think we all know that won't happen :(

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Plunge into Darkness is essentially the same as that black scry card you suggested.

You're on the money about Survival too but I think we all know that won't happen :(

Plunge into Darkness is the perfect precedent to print what I'm asking for as a sorcery, but at 1cc it will be a shitload more useful in non-combo Legacy decks than at 2cc.

[Gheizen64]

Plunge into Darkness is essentially the same as that black scry card you suggested.

You're on the money about Survival too but I think we all know that won't happen :(

Big difference, plunge cost 2 and see one less card. An instant like:

Acid Trip B
Instant
Pay X life.
Scry X.
Draw a card.
Man i've seen... uuh... things... like... uh... man!

Would actually be pretty good. It's an instant preordain for 2 life, and that already make it a decent card since it's not blue and has a lot of flexibility, it even cycle for 0 life (for 1 it's a slightly worse opt).

They need to print this card if only for the name.

As for card that punish brainstorm, there's a card already that has the perfect mechanic Underworld dreams. Just make it an hatebear for Red or Black and you got a pretty good anti-combo anti-control card. Even better, make it a 2/1 first strike for RB. No one play RB anyway.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The fact that Chains of Mephistopheles doesn't see play is all the evidence necessary, I think, to say that printing a Brainstorm "hoser" is futile.

[Gheizen64]

The fact that Chains of Mephistopheles doesn't see play is all the evidence necessary, I think, to say that printing a Brainstorm "hoser" is futile.

Chains however has the problem that it's useless aside from "hosing" a card that cost less than it and it doesn't work in multiples (no one will cast a brainstorm even with a single chain down, let alone 2). Basically Chains is just a mediocre card unless against things like Time Spiral. Everything should be an hatebear or have some other forms of secondary utility.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Chains however has the problem that it's useless aside from "hosing" a card that cost less than it and it doesn't work in multiples (no one will cast a brainstorm even with a single chain down, let alone 2). Basically Chains is just a mediocre card unless against things like Time Spiral. Everything should be an hatebear or have some other forms of secondary utility.

Well I mean this is why it's absurd to try and hose Brainstorm. Just give other colors, especially black and green, cards that give them similar fundamental consistency. Black especially, I guess green already has a decent bit in GSZ and Library and if they unbanned it Survival.

[Koby]

As for card that punish brainstorm, there's a card already that has the perfect mechanic Underworld dreams. Just make it an hatebear for Red or Black and you got a pretty good anti-combo anti-control card. Even better, make it a 2/1 first strike for RB. No one play RB anyway.

Kederekt Parasite, and yet it still sees no play, very likely because...


No one play RB anyway.


Well I mean this is why it's absurd to try and hose Brainstorm. Just give other colors, especially black and green, cards that give them similar fundamental consistency. Black especially, I guess green already has a decent bit in GSZ and Library and if they unbanned it Survival.

I don't think Green needs any more help with creatures or ways to find creatures. It feels like there are many viable core-green based strategies that are highly competitive. I think White and Black could both use some extra utility that isn't type-cast from its traditional roles (cheap removal, discard, etc) or some solid beaters that aren't easily splashable.

It's been a while since we've had AEther Vial decks see tons of success in the highest levels. This seems like a perfect place to help push against Blue's dominance.

[Gheizen64]

Kederekt Parasite, and yet it still sees no play, very likely because...


Kaderek is a 1/1 that need another permanent... it's way, way worse than what i proposed.

[Koby]

Kaderek is a 1/1 that need another permanent... it's way, way worse than what i proposed.

In terms of playability, a 1/1 is effectively the same as a 2/1. 4 toughtness is the magic number.

[Gheizen64]

In terms of playability, a 1/1 is effectively the same as a 2/1. 4 toughtness is the magic number.

A 1/1 can't put a clock. But more than anything this is effectively an enchant creature, it leave you open to 2 for 1. Not requiring a red permanent would make this card cute but still not playable, and being a 2/1 for 2 would make it probably fringe playable (while a 2/1 first strike would be imho playable since that would make it unblockable against many things). Being a possible clock matter in decks that want to race (like i suppose a RB deck would be).

[Koby]

Of the main creatures in Legacy, they fall into three categories:

1. Spell-like creatures (SCM, Clique, SFM, Spellstutter Sprite - no surprise these are mostly Blue)
2. Big Ass creatures (Goyf, KotR, Tombstalker)
3. Recurring effects (Dark Confidant, Mother of Runes, Grim Lavamancer)

HM: Tribal

Group 3 are usually very vulnerable to removal, but their effect is so great that it warrants playing them. Would an Underworld Dreamer be worthy of play if it were 2/2 or smaller?

[DrJones]

Would an Underworld Dreamer be worthy of play if it were 2/2 or smaller?Having played with both Kederekt Parasite and Underworld Dreams, the only way they would be playable is if they were free, and I'm not even sure about that. However, Phyrexian Tyranny is playable even at its current cost. Pity it gets countered all the time.

[sligh16]

Other colors don't need Brainstorm "hate." The very concept is actually kind of absurd. Other colors need cards that fulfill the same function of fixing your fundamentals at a very low cost, so that their games will play out more smoothly. They also need cards that are versatile and cheap/have alternate casting costs like Daze and Force, but the first is more important.

I don't like card creation threads generally because they tend to get silly and unrealistic, but some rough ideas:

1cc good Cantrips/card advantage:
A white or green spell that searches your library for a 1cc creature and puts it into play with a +1/+1 counter.
A white or green spell that lets you put a 3cc or less creature from your hand into play and then draws a card.
A white spell that says, "Until end of turn, whenever you're dealt damage draw that many cards."
A red spell that searches your library for three different cards, puts one at random into your hand and the others on the bottom of your library.
A black spell that lets you pay X life to scry X and then draw a card.
A black spell that draws you cards and loses you life equal to half the number of swamps you control, rounded up.

Some cards it would be nice to see in pitch/alternate casting cost form:
A shatterbolt/card that either destroys an artifact or does some damage.
Some decent beaters in every color.
A black spell that destroys a creature or planeswalker.

It would also be nice to see counters bleed a little bit into other colors, since you know they've printed fucking Delver and all.

Also if they could unban Survival and ban Vengevine instead that would give green a big boost.

Do you have a link to the article where Alix talks about blue and his better grip of the fundamentals? I would like to read it.

It would be nice if R&D re evaluated the fundamentals of each color, since the game has extended for many years since everything started and we as players and they as designers have a better perspective of the mechanics that naturally have an advantage in how the game is designed (blue mechanics per se tend to be the best) and start splashing this fundamental mechanics to each other color, but in a color-related way.

I know that Wizards have been doing this already, but the problem is that very few of them are actually playable.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It was in the middle of a frisbee game, so no. The discussion was about, basically, the same thing as this thread except no one was saying that Ponder is equitable to Brainstorm making me want to commit felonies; whether blue is too good, whether blue can be too good or if it's fine that you have to play blue in Legacy, why did they print Delver seriously guys wtf, whether Brainstorm is the right target to hit or if that would kill peoples' interest in the format. I said that if Delver was going to get printed they should go ahead and bleed playable counterspells into other colors (although no one played Mental Misstep outside of blue, wtf people), but the counterpoint was that blue's real strength is better control over the fundamental mechanic of the game (drawing cards). Which is a fair point, although the gap between Top/Library/Bobs and Ponder/Preordain is a lot smaller than the gap between the first two and Brainstorm.

But printing good, cheap card-quality filters in other colors is one way to test the theory. Green already has a few as noted, and could use some more especially at the 1cc slot. Other colors have very little going for them outside of Bob and Stoneforge Mystic.

[Zilla]

it certainly doesn't make sense to open the floodgates on power creep and inundate the other colors with entirely new cards that are also available in Standard.
I think it's wrong to assume that printing strong, Legacy playable cards in other colors is necessarily going to cause major power creep, or have any significant impact on Standard at all, for that matter.

Mental Misstep is a pretty good example. It was completely fucking amazing in Legacy and had hardly impact on Standard at all. The only mistake they made with it was that it was as good (or better) for blue as it was for other colors.

Incidentally, Misstep was a card that "punished" Brainstorm indirectly, which was what I was getting at. I agree it would be absurd to print cards aimed directly at Brainstorm and only at Brainstorm. I simply meant that they could start printing nonblue cards that effectively weaken Brainstorm-based strategies and thus strengthen the other colors by comparison.

[sligh16]

It's just that I feel that R&D has been wasting precious opportunities lately. Misstep was a nice idea, but it turned into something awful. Delver was the opportunity to give black a boost, and the same for red in the case of Snapcaster.

Maybe if they took the time (and resources) to test this cards better? maybe bothering to test Legacy?

Come on R&D, you do an overall GREAT job, and I really respect that. But It's like they're wasting beautiful designs just because of laziness (as MaRo said, they don't test Legacy).

[Barook]

I understood it clearly, but when talking about Brainstorm decks, and moreso recently - being a creature is an increasing liability than being an artifact. I don't think at all Psychogenic Probe is playable in Legacy, and even recent examples of reactionary hate-bears are fucking terrible (Tunnel Ingus, what a waste of cardboard).

What about Leonin Arbiter combined with Suppression Field? We as a community keep identifying the taxing strategy as possible solution to fetchlands, but it never seems to actually stick.

Maralen of the Mornsong
Leonin Arbiter
Aven Mindcensor

Probe sucks for one simple reason: It's virtual card disadvantage.

It just sits on the board while having zero impact on it. Same is true for many enchantments. If it was a 2cc "bear", it would be an entirely different story, simply because it could attack, block and carry equipment.

Same goes for Chains of Mephistopheles. I would love to see a creature form with an updated, cleaner wording. Something like this:

Faust :1::b:
Creature - Human Wizard
Whenever a spell or ability causes a player to draw a card, that player discards a card instead.
2/1

Taxing strategies are too often too slow to really affect fetchlands. I would love to see a 2cc pitch Stifle in a non-blue color (maybe red, since green already has a tons of stuff and doesn't need that much love, unlike red). Not only would it give red at least a tiny bit of combo hate, it would also reinforce red as the best LD color of the format without ruining Standard. The effect on the mana bases in Legacy would be hilarious to watch, though.

[rufus]

These are decent suggestions but putting such strong restrictions on a card that's actually playable by itself might hinder card-draw oriented strategies too much. I don't know. Do you know?

I don't know. However, there are quite a number of cards in circulation (like Trinisphere) which do amazingly obnoxious stuff, and people can deal with them. As a 'jail' effect, preventing card draw is pretty poor. If you consider something like Chains of Mephistopholes, it seems like draw prevention isn't going to be something to worry about.


That's not my point. My point is: do you agree that Brainstorm is a tactical card and therefor can't be attacked on a strategical level like you do against e.g. Storm? Do you also agree that thus the only way to actually "punish" Brainstorm is by having cards that are good on their own? If so, how could that be done without breaking the game in half. A card like the one I posted would be something that - even without brainstorm - increases the luck factor to a level I would consider inappropriate when it comes to competitive gaming. Maybe.


I agree that Brainstorm is really only effectively counterable by cards that are strong in its absence. The clearest argument is, probably, that decks can win without brainstorm, so any card which needs to be facing Brainstorm to be worthwhile would be, at best, 1-1, and, in practice, much worse since it would only pay off when both the counter and Brainstorm were both in play.



I would love to see a 2cc pitch Stifle in a non-blue color (maybe red, since green already has a tons of stuff and doesn't need that much love, unlike red). Not only would it give red at least a tiny bit of combo hate, it would also reinforce red as the best LD color of the format without ruining Standard. The effect on the mana bases in Legacy would be hilarious to watch, though.

For a while I've been thinking that Red should get a 'copy target triggered or activated ability' spell. That fits the color pie a little better, and makes for some interesting consideration. I'd think an effect that powerful (stifle or copy) with a pitch cost, could stand to have a base cc of 3 or higher. (That's also not so terrible vs, say, counterbalance.) Regarding mana bases, I also think that fast development is generally more fun than prison effects.

[catmint]

My first reaction to delver and snapcaster was also: "why blue".

But if they print snapcaster for 1R, that would not only force legacy into a blue shell, but into a blue/red shell, which damages the variety of the format a lot.

If they really print bombs like snapcaster in other colors, they have to make it with some restriction to make it not possible to just splash it into a blue shell.

[Sims]

My first reaction to delver and snapcaster was also: "why blue".

But if they print snapcaster for 1R, that would not only force legacy into a blue shell, but into a blue/red shell, which damages the variety of the format a lot.

If they really print bombs like snapcaster in other colors, they have to make it with some restriction to make it not possible to just splash it into a blue shell.


In order to keep the card from being easily splashed into a blue shell the CC would have had to be changed to :r::r: instead of :1::r:. The card would still be played in the blue shells that want it, such as Tempo Thresh for instance, but it would force them into heavier red presence in the mana base the same way Team America risks their manabase to support Hymn. It would, however, prevent easy splashing into Bant/Esper styled SFM decks.

[ReAnimator]

The problem with printing non splashable cards that are strong against blue, is that your one new card has to be better than or equal to playing blue, otherwise you just have an unplayable card. Why run 4x of this new awesome card when you can just run blue and have 20 awesome cards? How are you going to find your new awesome card with any consistency if you arent' running blue?

It's the same problem with Chalice of the void, you can only run 4, and the only way to realistically make that more consistent is to play cheap blue cards, which don't work with chalice, and there is still no guarantee that it resolves or you find it in time for it to matter.

[rufus]

My first reaction to delver and snapcaster was also: "why blue".

But if they print snapcaster for 1R, that would not only force legacy into a blue shell, but into a blue/red shell, which damages the variety of the format a lot.

A bit like Tarmogoyf or Dark Confidant forcing legacy into BGU? I'd think that people play blue + splash because there are so many strong cards in blue - notably the excellent cantrip suite - much the same way that goblin decks tend to be red plus splash.

If every color had even 5 awesome cards - that is, cards with power level and generic utility comparable to the top 5 blue cards, it would significantly open up the field.


The discussion was about, basically, the same thing as this thread except no one was saying that Ponder is equitable to Brainstorm making me want to commit felonies;...

I'd think Brainstorm is much stronger than Ponder because Brainstorm swaps out up to two cards instead of one as well as being an instant. Especially since free shuffles can be had from fetchlands, that's probably worth a card more in terms of virtual card advantage.

[Dzra]

The ironic thing is that everyone bashing on Brainstorm doesn't seem to realize that Brainstorm is necessary to having a Legacy format that can consistently fight combo. FoW without Brainstorm is not good enough. So, in a Brainstormless Legacy, why wouldn't you be playing combo? You would if you wanted to win. The irony then is that non-Blue decks actually get worse. Zoo, Junk, Maverick, etc all start looking at a really uphill battle against a format dominated by combo decks. The top 8 wouldn't be 70% Brainstorm, it'd be 70% Lion's Eye Diamond and Zoo would still be bad. I'm not saying that the format couldn't use some tweaking, but banning Brainstorm will only make things worse.

Printing good creatures that aren't splashable in Blue decks (Wild Natacl) and coming up with ways for non-Blue decks to have better flexibility and card selection (Scry, Dark Confidant, etc) are good ways to help balance the format without destroying it.

A creature that reads

Junkbear :1::b:
When Junkbear enters the battlefield target player reveals his or her hand. You choose a nonland card from it. That player discards that card.
If you do not control a forest, lose 4 life.
If you do not control a plains, lose 4 life.
2/1

is a good example of something they could print to help add non-Blue diversity to the format.

Another example could be something like

Rawrdinosaur :1::r:
When Rawrdinosaur enters the battlefield, Scry 2.
If you control an Island, Rawrdinosaur deals 3 damage to you, otherwise Rawrdinosaur deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
2/1

[Koby]

The ironic thing is that everyone bashing on Brainstorm doesn't seem to realize that Brainstorm is necessary to having a Legacy format that can consistently fight combo.[/I]

This isn't true, and not even in the slightest.

Brainstorm is needed in FOW decks to retain consistency after throwing away cards to FOW. Brainstorm is ALSO used to hide key spells against Black disruption (Duress, 'Seize, Hymn). Brainstorm is used to fix mediocre combo hands that have the capacity to go off in the same turn.

But having Brainstorm is not necessary to be able to fight combo.

[Dzra]

Brainstorm is needed in FOW decks to retain consistency after throwing away cards to FOW.

Brainstorm's main function is card selection. I can fetch away my Swords to Plowshares against Storm or my FoWs against Zoo, I can trade my Spell Snare for something live against Dredge.


Brainstorm is ALSO used to hide key spells against Black disruption (Duress, 'Seize, Hymn).

Yes, Brainstorm is an extremely important tool in giving Blue decks the ability to fight hand disruption.


But having Brainstorm is not necessary to be able to fight combo.

Brainstorm is necessary in having a deck that has the consistency to fight combo and not auto-lose to everything else. Yes, I can build a control deck with enough countermagic to consistently be able to keep combo from going off on turns 0-3 through hand disruption and potentially opposing counters... but I won't be able to beat aggro, I'll lose to Dredge and Loam decks, and I will have very little space for my win conditions to actually finish the deed before we go to time. Or I could play combo which has fair odds against non-Brainstorm Blue decks and has great odds against the rest of the field.

[UnderwaterGuy]

\
Rawrdinosaur :1::r:
When Rawrdinosaur enters the battlefield, Scry 2.
If you control an Island, Rawrdinosaur deals 3 damage to you, otherwise Rawrdinosaur deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
2/1

That is mad fucking broken.

It would be funny though and I agree red needs more extremely good cards than just Lightning Bolt and REB (lol).

[Dzra]

That is mad fucking broken.

It would be funny though and I agree red needs more extremely good cards than just Lightning Bolt and REB (lol).

Yeah, it's overpowered. lol But the point is that it isn't overly hard to fix the color balance without dumbing down the format with bad bans. Make it a 2/1 Haster that Scrys if you don't control an Island. Or a 2/1 that Bolts when it enters the battlefield. More Scry-like effects would help. Giving non-Blue players more opportunity to outplay their opponents will go a long way in making non-Blue decks played more.

[Admiral_Arzar]

The ironic thing is that everyone bashing on Brainstorm doesn't seem to realize that Brainstorm is necessary to having a Legacy format that can consistently fight combo. FoW without Brainstorm is not good enough. So, in a Brainstormless Legacy, why wouldn't you be playing combo? You would if you wanted to win. The irony then is that non-Blue decks actually get worse. Zoo, Junk, Maverick, etc all start looking at a really uphill battle against a format dominated by combo decks. The top 8 wouldn't be 70% Brainstorm, it'd be 70% Lion's Eye Diamond and Zoo would still be bad. I'm not saying that the format couldn't use some tweaking, but banning Brainstorm will only make things worse.




Every chicken little on the internet thinks that combo winter will happen immediately if Brainstorm is banned, which is not true. I'm getting really fucking tired of explaining to people that don't have a clue how combo works that Brainstorm is BETTER in combo than it is in any traditional blue deck. Most combo decks hate drawing multiples of a lot of cards (more than one Emrakul in SnT, more than one Infernal Tutor in TES), and have cards you rarely want to draw normally pre-combo (Tendrils in TES, Zenith in Spiral Tide, Progenitus in any NO deck, IGG or Tendrils in Doomsday, I could go on all fucking day here). The ability to put back these duplicates or unwanted dead cards and shuffle is ESSENTIAL in every blue-based combo deck, and all of these decks would take a massive hit if Brainstorm was banned.


I think I'm actually going to save this post somewhere so I can just keep quoting it whenever somebody pops up with this idiotic argument.

[Dzra]

Is Brainstorm good in combo? Yes. Is Brainstorm key in allowing Legacy control decks the flexibility to survive against the most diverse meta in magic? Yes.

Brainstorm is really great in combo, who is arguing? Banning Brainstorm would mean that combo decks that run Blue become less consistent in varying degrees. It also means that one Duress/Thoughtseize nearly guarantees you will be able to combo off. Banning Brainstorm also doesn't affect Belcher, Elves, Dredge, Enchantress, and Spanish Inquisition. It has a minimal affect on Reanimator and Celaphid Breakfast. Meanwhile, Control decks are having to work twice as hard to fight combo and still have game against the rest of the format.

Tell me, what are you trying to accomplish by banning Brainstorm? There are two roads, banning cards that allow for complex skill trees thus adding more variance to the game or printing cards that help non-Blue decks reduce their variance and allow non-Blue players the opportunity to outplay their opponent.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

From a control perspective, Legacy atm isn't particularly diverse. It's like 80% midrange decks with 8-12 actual threats and maybe a couple bomby spells.

Archetypical diversity is actually pretty low right now. It's a lot easier to design a control deck to beat Team America, Counter-Rug, Bant and Maverick than it is to build one that beats Team America, Fish, Zoo, Tendrils and Landstill.

[Dzra]

RUG Tempo 1st
RUG Tempo 2nd
Reanimator 3rd
Elves 4th
Aggro Loam 5th
GW Stoneblade 6th
Bant Stoneblade 7th
Burn 8th
G/W Stoneblade 9th
Bant Stoneblade 10th
Zoo 11th
Merfolk 12th
Esper Stoneblade 13th
RUG Tempo 14th
RUG Tempo 15th
Merfolk 16th

RUG Tempo - 4
Bant Stoneblade - 2
GW Stoneblade - 2
Merfolk - 2
Esper Stoneblade - 1
Reanimator - 1
Elves - 1
Aggro Loam - 1
Zoo - 1
Burn - 1

Out of 16 decks, there were 10 different archtypes. Only 4 of those archtypes ran Brainstorm. Only 8 out of the 16 decks ran Brainstorm. Of those archtypes, there is a burn strat, a hybrid burn/creature strat, a gy strat, a hyrbrid gy/aggro strat, a combo/aggro strat, a tempo strat, an aggro/control strat, and a pure creature strat. All of these different strategies require a different counterstrategy to beat. There is nothing simple about the metagame of Legacy.

[Koby]

There is nothing simple about the metagame of Legacy.

Seems to me like Wrath of God and recurring EE would work that metagame over backwards, especially when backed by cheap counters.

Sure there's diversity, but a Landstill deck that is not susceptible to wasteland/stifle would have a pretty easy time against those top decks.

But also keep in mind that this represents the best performing decks in one tournament out of 155 other competitors. Not all the decks at that tournament were comprised of those specific archetypes. Belcher, Reanimator, ANT, Junk, and Burn were very widespread at Las Vegas.

PS: 6th place was not Bant, but rather Maverick. I should know, since I was piloting it ;P

[Dzra]

Oh did I mix some up or were there two Mavericks? Congrats btw. :)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

RUG Tempo 1st
RUG Tempo 2nd
Reanimator 3rd
Elves 4th
Aggro Loam 5th
GW Stoneblade 6th
Bant Stoneblade 7th
Burn 8th
G/W Stoneblade 9th
Bant Stoneblade 10th
Zoo 11th
Merfolk 12th
Esper Stoneblade 13th
RUG Tempo 14th
RUG Tempo 15th
Merfolk 16th

RUG Tempo - 4
Bant Stoneblade - 2
GW Stoneblade - 2
Merfolk - 2
Esper Stoneblade - 1
Reanimator - 1
Elves - 1
Aggro Loam - 1
Zoo - 1
Burn - 1

Out of 16 decks, there were 10 different archtypes. Only 4 of those archtypes ran Brainstorm. Only 8 out of the 16 decks ran Brainstorm. Of those archtypes, there is a burn strat, a hybrid burn/creature strat, a gy strat, a hyrbrid gy/aggro strat, a combo/aggro strat, a tempo strat, an aggro/control strat, and a pure creature strat. All of these different strategies require a different counterstrategy to beat. There is nothing simple about the metagame of Legacy.

Those are decks, not archetypes.

I have bolded everything that was not a non-linear mid-range deck. It adds up to 3 of 16.

[DragoFireheart]

I think I'm actually going to save this post somewhere so I can just keep quoting it whenever somebody pops up with this idiotic argument.

So what are we trying to weaken? Blue combo or blue control? Banning brainstorm hurts combo decks far more that rely on it compared to blue decks that rely on it.

[thefringthing]

Banning brainstorm hurts combo decks far more that rely on it compared to blue decks that rely on it.I'm still convinced this is quite false. There is no shortage of reasonable cantrips for combo to use. While they are certainly a downgrade for combo, these replacements (Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe, Sleight of Hand, Portent, Impulse, Peer Through Depths, Telling Time, ...) don't provide the kind of deckbuilding flexibility upon which the "goodstuff" decks rely.

[Admiral_Arzar]

I'm still convinced this is quite false. There is no shortage of reasonable cantrips for combo to use. While they are certainly a downgrade for combo, these replacements (Ponder, Preordain, Gitaxian Probe, Sleight of Hand, Portent, Impulse, Peer Through Depths, Telling Time, ...) don't provide the kind of deckbuilding flexibility upon which the "goodstuff" decks rely.


I'm getting really fucking tired of explaining to people that don't have a clue how combo works that Brainstorm is BETTER in combo than it is in any traditional blue deck. Most combo decks hate drawing multiples of a lot of cards (more than one Emrakul in SnT, more than one Infernal Tutor in TES), and have cards you rarely want to draw normally pre-combo (Tendrils in TES, Zenith in Spiral Tide, Progenitus in any NO deck, IGG or Tendrils in Doomsday, I could go on all fucking day here). The ability to put back these duplicates or unwanted dead cards and shuffle is ESSENTIAL in every blue-based combo deck, and all of these decks would take a massive hit if Brainstorm was banned.


I'll keep posting this until kingdom come if necessary. Plus, all but the first three cantrips you listed are fucking awful. Excuse me while I go punch myself in the balls at the though of playing PEER THROUGH DEPTHS in TES. I really want to kick the next non-combo player who makes stupid assumptions about the archetype in the dick.

[Mr. Safety]

I'll keep posting this until kingdom come if necessary. Plus, all but the first three cantrips you listed are fucking awful. Excuse me while I go punch myself in the balls at the though of playing PEER THROUGH DEPTHS in TES. I really want to kick the next non-combo player who makes stupid assumptions about the archetype in the dick.

Sig it, or at least link to it. I appreciate your input as an experienced combo player.

[snappingbowls | ಠ_ಠ]

Why are folks gnashing their teeth over Brainstorm all of a sudden? I have a few ideas, most have which have already been said.

- the printing of delver lets you play a very aggressive blue based aggro deck, instead of a having to play a 3rd color to support goyf of SFM

- people look at t16s for SCG and think this is fair population sample to make decisions as important as banning a card - more metas and top8s need to be consulted!

- just because BS is powerful - doesn't mean it should go. FoW is very, very strong, so are fetchlands. How long ago was it that people were clamoring to nix LED? At least over on SCG a few years ago people we're getting excited about that.

- finally, banning cards to "balance to color pie" or "make blue less strong" is absolutely silly. The only sensible reason, in my mind, for banning something is if it makes the game less fun for more than half of the active population and is played in EVERY deck (survival, MM - they should've just banned Vine grr)

Also, hello everyone!! :)

[thefringthing]

I really want to kick the next non-combo player who makes stupid assumptions about the archetype in the dick.

I only play combo. I have an idea of what I'm talking about. Yelling about punching dicks isn't constructive.

I didn't really mean to suggest that anyone would ever play Peer Through Depths in TES. Of course the cantrips I listed are worse than Brainstorm; everything is worse than Brainstorm.

I was trying to illustrate the point that Brainstorm is more replaceable in combo decks than in tempo decks. Combo decks want to use cantrips to significantly improve velocity, whereas tempo decks use Brainstorm specifically to let them build their decks using more spells (i.e. fewer lands) and more diverse spells (i.e. more 1- and 2-ofs, fewer 3- and 4-ofs).

[Admiral_Arzar]

I was trying to illustrate the point that Brainstorm is more replaceable in combo decks than in tempo decks. Combo decks want to use cantrips to significantly improve velocity, whereas tempo decks use Brainstorm specifically to let them build their decks using more spells (i.e. fewer lands) and more diverse spells (i.e. more 1- and 2-ofs, fewer 3- and 4-ofs).

Brainstorm is the only cantrip that allows you to shuffle away dead combo pieces that you have unwittingly drawn, which is only one of the reasons why it's stronger in combo than in the average blue deck. It is also the only cantrip which shows you three new cards, allowing you to rapidly swap dead cards for cards that actually mean something. I'm aware that blue decks have dead cards in certain matchups - however they rarely run one-ofs that are horribly to draw, unlike combo.

[I am the brainwasher]

@Admiral:

I dont understand what you are fighting over all the time since this thread had opened.
You already pointed out that you are against a banning of Brainstorm and showed also to an nearly annoying extend that you think that combo is way more Brainstorm-dependent than every other deck that ever existed, exists and will exist in the future.
I also have 3 Combo-players in my testing group, which showed very good results with DDFT, ANT and TES over nearly a year, and I for myself do know what a banning of Brainstorm means for the actual lists (THE ACTUAL LISTS).
Dont act like you're some godwise genius that has a clear look at Legacy and especially Stormcombo while others are just tapping in the dark.
Why is it so important to you to show to others how right you are on that (which you ironically arent)?
I really wonder if you havent thought about the directions storm-combo could go or if you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Every storm-combo player I talked about that (and which oppinion I respect) so far directly agreed that the loss of Brainstorm isnt the end of the world and not only due to Past in Flames there are tons of different ways to spit Tendrils in the opponents face, consistent and protective.

To sum that up:

- You are against a banning of Brainstorm
at the same time
- You are busy showing counter-arguments why Brainstorm actually is a busted card and wins games on its own
while
- You consider every other player (let it be combo or no combo player) beeing plain incorrect about Brainstorm in different decks unless they share your oppinion

So now I ask this question, in all honesty and without any insults to you as a person, what are you debating about?

[AriLax]

Brainstorm is the only cantrip that allows you to shuffle away dead combo pieces that you have unwittingly drawn, which is only one of the reasons why it's stronger in combo than in the average blue deck. It is also the only cantrip which shows you three new cards, allowing you to rapidly swap dead cards for cards that actually mean something. I'm aware that blue decks have dead cards in certain matchups - however they rarely run one-ofs that are horribly to draw, unlike combo.

This. Combo decks have Vintage style Brainstorm where sometimes the game goes from you having a bad hand to them just being randomly dead when they resolve, where as the normal Blue decks are just trying to use them to add to their incremental value. The combo decks also want to use Brainstorm early when they have the highest volume of cards to move around and the most fetches sitting around compared to later with near empty hands and only fetches you have slow rolled or ripped.

[DragoFireheart]

So now I ask this question, in all honesty and without any insults to you as a person, what are you debating about?

- I have to ask this as well. You are anti-BS ban yet you continue to argue ways in which it makes combo decks "busted". What exactly is your point beyond "Brainstorm is better in combo than control/aggro-control"?

[Koby]

Intrinsically that kind of argument (BS better in combo) lends itself to suggesting that Brainstorm become banned rather than remain in the format.

In the spirit of R&D-ness, Brainstorm being an instant reduces the amount of decisions made in a given turn since there's only one correct time to play it. (EOT with Fetchland) Tempo decks being forced to play Sorcery speed versions would have to make a choice of playing cantrips or leaving mana up for whatever reactive cards.

[Admiral_Arzar]

@Admiral:

I dont understand what you are fighting over all the time since this thread had opened.
You already pointed out that you are against a banning of Brainstorm and showed also to an nearly annoying extend that you think that combo is way more Brainstorm-dependent than every other deck that ever existed, exists and will exist in the future.
I also have 3 Combo-players in my testing group, which showed very good results with DDFT, ANT and TES over nearly a year, and I for myself do know what a banning of Brainstorm means for the actual lists (THE ACTUAL LISTS).
Dont act like you're some godwise genius that has a clear look at Legacy and especially Stormcombo while others are just tapping in the dark.
Why is it so important to you to show to others how right you are on that (which you ironically arent)?
I really wonder if you havent thought about the directions storm-combo could go or if you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Every storm-combo player I talked about that (and which oppinion I respect) so far directly agreed that the loss of Brainstorm isnt the end of the world and not only due to Past in Flames there are tons of different ways to spit Tendrils in the opponents face, consistent and protective.

To sum that up:

- You are against a banning of Brainstorm
at the same time
- You are busy showing counter-arguments why Brainstorm actually is a busted card and wins games on its own
while
- You consider every other player (let it be combo or no combo player) beeing plain incorrect about Brainstorm in different decks unless they share your oppinion

So now I ask this question, in all honesty and without any insults to you as a person, what are you debating about?

My original post was responding to people who claimed there would be a combo winter if Brainstorm was banned, and I will admit has less bearing at this point in the discussion. I am very apprehensive about the whole subject of a BS ban - I don't like the idea, but I think it's because of different reasons than a lot of people. My examples have been to show that BS is stronger in combo than in the average U/x deck, to back up the original argument. I have also never said that combo would suddenly be unplayable with Brainstorm gone, just weakened.


This. Combo decks have Vintage style Brainstorm where sometimes the game goes from you having a bad hand to them just being randomly dead when they resolve, where as the normal Blue decks are just trying to use them to add to their incremental value. The combo decks also want to use Brainstorm early when they have the highest volume of cards to move around and the most fetches sitting around compared to later with near empty hands and only fetches you have slow rolled or ripped.

Yes. Ponder or Preordain very rarely have the power to sculpt like Michelangelo in a single turn, for one mana.


- I have to ask this as well. You are anti-BS ban yet you continue to argue ways in which it makes combo decks "busted". What exactly is your point beyond "Brainstorm is better in combo than control/aggro-control"?

That IS my point - not sure why that was unclear. The reason I don't think it making combo decks "busted" matters is that we don't see combo decks dominating the format.


Intrinsically that kind of argument (BS better in combo) lends itself to suggesting that Brainstorm become banned rather than remain in the format.

In the spirit of R&D-ness, Brainstorm being an instant reduces the amount of decisions made in a given turn since there's only one correct time to play it. (EOT with Fetchland) Tempo decks being forced to play Sorcery speed versions would have to make a choice of playing cantrips or leaving mana up for whatever reactive cards.

Lies. Sorcery speed Brainstorm, fetch, then Ponder or Preordain is generally my favorite way to play it :P.

[I am the brainwasher]

@Admiral:

Thanks for finally clearing that out, really. At some point I was more than confused why you spend that much effort onto that.

"Lies. Sorcery speed Brainstorm, fetch, then Ponder or Preordain is generally my favorite way to play it :P. "
-Admiral_Arzar

This this this. Same in tempo-decks most of the times. Playing it eot or in response is normally down to beeing desperate or pure luxury.

[AriLax]

In the spirit of R&D-ness, Brainstorm being an instant reduces the amount of decisions made in a given turn since there's only one correct time to play it. (EOT with Fetchland) Tempo decks being forced to play Sorcery speed versions would have to make a choice of playing cantrips or leaving mana up for whatever reactive cards.

Not to pile on but odds are if you are EOT Brainstorming you are probably fairly far ahead or hoping to mise. If anything, the fact it is an instant baits more misplays as it gives people more opportunities to cast it when they shouldn't be.

[Admiral_Arzar]

@Admiral:

Thanks for finally clearing that out, really. At some point I was more than confused why you spend that much effort onto that.

"Lies. Sorcery speed Brainstorm, fetch, then Ponder or Preordain is generally my favorite way to play it :P. "
-Admiral_Arzar

This this this. Same in tempo-decks most of the times. Playing it eot or in response is normally down to being desperate or pure luxury.

No problem. Mostly, I got a little too zealous over something that has kind of passed by in the discussion (it seems like people always think combo is or will be much more broken than it actually is). Brainstorm + Fetch + Ponder/Preordain is one of the strongest plays you can make in Spiral Tide IMO. The amount of masterful sculpting there reaches classical Greek levels. I personally hate EOT Brainstorm because the fact that I can dig one deeper if I wait until my next main-phase is always in my mind.


Not to pile on but odds are if you are EOT Brainstorming you are probably fairly far ahead or hoping to mise. If anything, the fact it is an instant baits more misplays as it gives people more opportunities to cast it when they shouldn't be.

This. I rarely EOT Brainstorm unless my hand is ridiculous or I'm aware that I have to combo the next turn and likely won't have an extra mana laying around. Brainstorm in response to discard is far more common for me.

[DragoFireheart]

That IS my point - not sure why that was unclear. The reason I don't think it making combo decks "busted" matters is that we don't see combo decks dominating the format.


Could one say this:

A- Brainstorm is better in combo than aggro-control decks.

B- Brainstorm is not making combo busted as combo isn't dominating.

C- Therefore, Brainstorm is fine as the combo decks it is better in are not dominating the format.

D- Blue aggro-control decks are therefore busted for a different reason and removing Brainstorm would hurt them less than combo decks losing Brainstorm.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Could one say this:

A- Brainstorm is better in combo than aggro-control decks.

B- Brainstorm is not making combo busted as combo isn't dominating.

C- Therefore, Brainstorm is fine as the combo decks it is better in are not dominating the format.

D- Blue aggro-control decks are therefore busted for a different reason and removing Brainstorm would hurt them less than combo decks losing Brainstorm.

Maybe. The card has rather different uses in the two archetypes as I see it, although some people may have a different interpretation. I honestly don't know what could be done to take blue down a peg without causing damage to combo decks that don't really deserve a nerf at this point - that's the main reason I'm against a Brainstorm ban actually.

[DragoFireheart]

Maybe. The card has rather different uses in the two archetypes as I see it, although some people may have a different interpretation. I honestly don't know what could be done to take blue down a peg without causing damage to combo decks that don't really deserve a nerf at this point - that's the main reason I'm against a Brainstorm ban actually.

Print better non-blue aggro cards?

Super Wild Cat
WRG
Creature - Cat

Haste, Trample, can't be countered.

5/5

[thefringthing]

I honestly don't know what could be done to take blue down a peg without causing damage to combo decks that don't really deserve a nerf at this point - that's the main reason I'm against a Brainstorm ban actually.Maybe printing a sorcery-speed Brainstorm in a new casual product (a la Commander or Planechase) and then ban Brainstorm?

Anything will just be a band-aid solution. I think an underlying root problem for Eternal is R&D's lack of testing. (Delver is obnoxious, Snapcaster really should have been red, Mental Misstep was obnoxious, etc.)

[Koby]

This this this. Same in tempo-decks most of the times. Playing it eot or in response is normally down to beeing desperate or pure luxury.


Not to pile on but odds are if you are EOT Brainstorming you are probably fairly far ahead or hoping to mise. If anything, the fact it is an instant baits more misplays as it gives people more opportunities to cast it when they shouldn't be.



This. I rarely EOT Brainstorm unless my hand is ridiculous or I'm aware that I have to combo the next turn and likely won't have an extra mana laying around. Brainstorm in response to discard is far more common for me.

Pile away. I make no pretense that I can play Brainstorm effectively. So much that my playtest buddies know I can never play Brainstorm decks to good finishes in tournaments. Room to learn I suppose.

[Admiral_Arzar]

Pile away. I make no pretense that I can play Brainstorm effectively. So much that my playtest buddies know I can never play Brainstorm decks to good finishes in tournaments. Room to learn I suppose.

I think the proper play with Brainstorm is also somewhat dependent on the strategy of the deck you're playing. Ari and I both play combo, which tends to have different "best times" to cast the card than a tempo or pure control deck I think (those decks gain much more value from casting Brainstorm in response to the opponent's spells, for example).

[nedleeds]

The benefit in the aggro blue decks that brain***** provides is enabling the mana bases they play. They can play 3 color decks with 40 spells and 4 wastelands and Brainstorm allows them to get away with it. It's ridiculous. Any deck without brainstorm either can't cheat on mana like that; run 23-24 and thus is stuck with land flooded hands or tries to skirt it and run 20-21 and get land screwed at least 2-3 times over a long tourney.