[Article] Eternal Europe: What Legacy Needs

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Talking about card design and where I'd like to see the game and design philosophies go in future sets. Obviously with a Legacy focus, though there are also some comments on the general direction of Magic as whole. Enjoy and let Wizards know what we'd like to see in the future!

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/24661-Eternal-Europe-What-Legacy-Needs.html

[Shawon]

Excellent article, and I salute your growing audience.

I mentioned this in the B/R thread, but I think black discard needs to be pushed. Not necessarily a power creep, but just an expansion of design.

Here's what I said in that thread about an unplayable discard spell, Psychotic Episode, with an undermarketed effect:


There are two big reasons why black discard sucks right now: topdecks and Brainstorm. Ignoring Psychotic Episode's mana costs, you can clearly see that its effect not only targets your opponent's hand, but it also targets your opponent's topdeck or a card that your opponent Brainstormed on the top. I think if modern black discard targeted the topdeck in addition to your opponent's hand, Brainstorm wouldn't be as powerful a solution to discard as it is now and black would be a stronger color.


I don't think having a Psychotic Episode for :b: is pushing any power boundaries. You would gain slightly more information than you would with Thoughtseize and the like, but if you choose to get rid of their topdeck, you don't gain any direct card advantage.

I think there are various and creative ways you can design a Psychotic Episode for B. Obviously, you can insert a 'nonland' clause in the text, or change the destination of the selected card (bottom of library, grave, shuffle, exile). I'm saying there's a lot of room to play with there, and that's just with a one-for-one discard spell.

Discard spells that attack multiple cards should be pushed too. When's the last time Mind Rot was played to success in Constructed tournaments? I think if a :2::b: discard spell that can look at your opponent's hand and make them discard up to two nonlands (or discard up to one land!) wouldn't be too unfair. Or make it cost :1::b::b: if you think it's too splashable. Making it cost-balanced can always come after designing the text.

Other than Cabal Therapy, I think the most intuitive discard spell I have ever seen is Persecute, which is sadly unplayable in a format full of intuition such as Legacy. Persecute is such an awesomely designed discard spell because it rewards critical thinking and insight on what an opponent is playing and what they may have in their hand. Perhaps a cheaper version of Persecute could be designed for BB, and have players discard 3 cards of a named color instead of all of them. Again, there's a lot of design space there.

[Koby]

RE: Shawon
Addle exists, but is strictly worse than Duress or Thoughtseize. It could be re-designed as a :b: spell that does the same effect, or increased to perhaps :b::b: and discards an additional card.

RE: Article
Good ideas that we've been discussing here on the Source in some threads. Thanks for compiling the ideas into one article and specifically address Wizards / R&D to step up their game when it comes to evaluating Legacy card needs. Kudos on another constructive article!

[Michael Keller]

Excellent article.

I guess I'm just in a camp of players who believe that any card with some level of competitive nature can be played to its maximum ability in a deck piloted by a skilled player to a big Top Eight. The biggest thing I see about Legacy that is relatively unnerving is how many untapped resources there are as far as unlimited deck-building is concerned. I guess it's just really hard to try something new when you know you have a "sure" thing that runs around in circles in a format predicated on a variety of similar decks that always show up in some capacity.

Point is, I think Legacy is just fine as a whole. However, a big problem lies in the automaton-like nature of larger events where the same decks just keep winning on a constant basis and no one has taken advantage of a predictable meta. At local events, this is obviously less true because of the higher amount of variance and less seriousness/money at stake in the prize pool of said tournament.

At something like an Open where thousands of dollars are literally there for the taking, are you going to walk into that tournament with something moderately original or fresh or are you going to build the same vomit-inducing seventy-five (75) that every other player is bringing into the room?

I just love it when competitive players get boned at tournaments by losing to something unexpected. (Just the other day I was playing Dredge - one of the last times I'll be playing it for the aforementioned reasons - and I got Haunting Echoes'd out - giving my opponent a high-five in the process.) It's why I like it when something like Flying Men with an Unstable Mutation and Psionic Blast wins an Open and everyone just starts calling it a "troll," when really all it is is someone willing to go into a heavy-artillery crossfire with no level of certainty - yet still being armed with an incredible potent weapon and willing to take a hero's risk by staking their tournament life on something completely or moderately original in order to inject some life into a format that should already be capable of producing mind-blowing strategies.

[Lord Seth]

Random anti-Brainstorm discard idea:

Anti-Brainstorm B
Sorcery
Target player draws two cards, then reveals their hand. You choose two nonland cards from it. That player discards those cards.

[Koby]

Random anti-Brainstorm discard idea:

Anti-Brainstorm B
Sorcery
Target player draws two cards, then reveals their hand. You choose two nonland cards from it. That player discards those cards.

I would much prefer a one-shot Chains of Mephistopheles tacked onto an Instant to the card quoted above.

[Mr Miagi]

I really quite enjoy your articles and must say keep it up.

But, not to sound too picky, the following can be also very dangerous:


our, right and duty to let Wizards know what we want out of the game, which developments we enjoy and which we despise.

This is why the Americans and their SCG net decking circus style "I want to play tier1 deck and can't build decks of my own, neither can I adopt or want to" supported by a massive whinefest has resulted in banning of Survival of the fittest. Truly, the main reason Wizards have banned this card is because of the massive outcry of the Americans - while the card was nevery really problematic in Europe.

All I am saying is, if you want to give power to the people you have to recognize a lot of people are idiots, or just lazy douchebags, but they can be quite vocal.. Let them have a "voice in the senate" and say goodbye to Brainstorm, Led, Force of will and Wasteland not to mention Show and tell.

Ultimately, what legacy needs is more solid players and especially less whiners!

[Michael Keller]

This is why the Americans and their SCG net decking circus style "I want to play tier1 deck and can't build decks of my own, neither can I adopt or want to" supported by a massive whinefest has resulted in banning of Survival of the fittest. Truly, the main reason Wizards have banned this card has is because of the massive outcry of the Americans - while the card was nevery really problematic in Europe.

Proximity and geographic location has absolutely little - if anything - to do with the inherent overpowered strengths of a cheap, permanent-based tutor that was able to hold a positive match-win percentage against every deck in the field - even beating out Storm/ANT at something like 58%.

A Survival of the Fittest in America is the same as a Survival of the Fittest in Antarctica; we just happened to crack how good it really was before any of you did, and I'm quite certain if left unscathed it would have found its way over and dominated the intercontinental metagame.

And I'm proud to be an American Legacy player. For the record.

[Mr Miagi]

Proximity and geographic location has absolutely little - if anything - to do with the inherent overpowered strengths of a cheap, permanent-based tutor that was able to hold a positive match-win percentage against every deck in the field - even beating out Storm/ANT at something like 58%.

A Survival of the Fittest in America is the same as a Survival of the Fittest in Antarctica; we just happened to crack how good it really was before any of you did, and I'm quite certain if left unscathed it would have found its way over and dominated the intercontinental metagame.

And I'm proud to be an American Legacy player. For the record.

Perhaps it would and perhaps even righfully so. The problem is Wizards listened to whiny bunch and made a hasty conclusion... and that is the danger of Wizards listening or taking guides from magic players... whiners tend to be the most vocal and if the outcry is loud enough (resonable or not) Wizards will be pressured to take actions..

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Perhaps it would and perhaps even righfully so. The problem is Wizards listened to whiny bunch and made a hasty conclusion... and that is the danger of Wizards listening or taking guides from magic players... whiners tend to be the most vocal and if the outcry is loud enough (resonable or not) Wizards will be pressured to take actions..

It's almost like Wizards is trying to manage the format for the players, and if the competent players all identify a deck as ruining the format they'll eventually take action rather than listening to a few idiots that can't get past their status quo bias.

[Michael Keller]

Perhaps it would and perhaps even righfully so. The problem is Wizards listened to whiny bunch and made a hasty conclusion... and that is the danger of Wizards listening or taking guides from magic players... whiners tend to be the most vocal and if the outcry is loud enough (resonable or not) Wizards will be pressured to take actions..

Can you prove this?

[Tammit67]

Perhaps it would and perhaps even righfully so. The problem is Wizards listened to whiny bunch and made a hasty conclusion... and that is the danger of Wizards listening or taking guides from magic players... whiners tend to be the most vocal and if the outcry is loud enough (resonable or not) Wizards will be pressured to take actions..

Even if true, Europe got Mystical hanged and we returned the favor :p

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Anyway. Disagree with the assessment of Tendrils decks' power level. The actual meat of the article is mostly fine, although I would say that the format could use more efficient threats- just not in fuckin' blue, thanksverymuch.

[Finn]

What would impress me is if R+D figured out how to make nonblue colors as skill-intensive as blue. Green Sun's Zenith is an example of how that can be done, but there are broader options also. Just make other colors gain the same level of advantage when you really know what you are doing as stuff like Ponder (Brainstorm might be asking for too much) in an entirely different way. That is, gain advantages on par with library searching without the search.

[Mewens]

I mostly play EDH these days, so my feelings about cards are pretty influenced by its restrictions -- but this article strikes close to some of my complaints about that format.

I feel like one of the major reasons that blue is so common is its stack control -- counterspells, especially free ones, are inherently strong cards that support a variety of strategies. It'd be awesome if Wizards could spread out that control to some of the other colors; black already has discard, a sort of preemptive stack control, and red has its Misdirection lines -- but both suites could use some buffing. A cheap red Spelljack-style spell would be excellent, while a few aggressive creatures that support discard -- cards like Yixlid Jailer -- would make that particular strategy far more potent.

I feel like white's gotten very few such tools, but they're very potent -- Thalia and Aethersworn Canonist -- and those are a good blueprint for the other colors. I just wish we had a way of making them relevant in ways other than "strap it to a 2/2 body."

I also heartily agree that there's a lot of "I win" spells running around now. That can be OK, assuming that there are tools to disrupt the ramp-up to them (which there clearly are, since Show and Tell isn't currently ruling the universe from atop a pile of corpses). It's just that we've pushed the battle into the stage stage before the nuclear bomb gets dropped about as far as it can go, in my opinion. I think it's fair to say you have to reach a decisive play against combo decks very early. You don't have to necessarily get combo pilots to 0 life by turn 4, but you do have to deny them the ability to cast (or win with) their nuke by that point. If Legacy's fundamental turn ever got to 2, I think bans would be warranted -- and, personally, I think Legacy's fundamental turn is around 3, generally speaking. I feel like we're really close to a format where the die roll is an important part of the game, and printing even more powerful 6-mana-plus drops will only push us farther in that direction. (On the other hand, I don't know if Wizards could reasonably print something with more board presence than Emrakul or Grizzlebees.)

I do have one nitpick with the article, though -- I'm not a fan of the idea that spells should inherently kill faster than dudes. The window of response to spells is far narrower than the window for creatures, and creatures have far more answers built into the fabric of the game. I totally agree that creatures have been pushed a little too far -- I'm not a fan of the Delver, either -- but they were definitely lagging behind spells in terms of power and versatility for a long, long time.

[Barook]

What would impress me is if R+D figured out how to make nonblue colors as skill-intensive as blue. Green Sun's Zenith is an example of how that can be done, but there are broader options also. Just make other colors gain the same level of advantage when you really know what you are doing as stuff like Ponder (Brainstorm might be asking for too much) in an entirely different way. That is, gain advantages on par with library searching without the search.

Another way to tone down blue would be good hate cards that
a) are maindeckable and
b) not really compatible with blue strategies (I'm looking at you, MM), like Thalia

Aside from that, I fully agree with the color commitment. Remember the blue Goyf jokes? It's also sad how imbalanced multi-colored cards are.
E.g. :g::w: gets goodies like Noble Hierach, Pridemage, KotR and Gaddock Teeg while :b::r: gets nothing but crap. The best it can offer is Terminate - really?

[Final Ritual]

Why waste cardboard and try to print another hoser. We need cards like GSZ that help build new archetypes that are inherently strong against blue strategies.

[Hardcore]

I disagree strongly about the effectiveness of black discard;
with neither a blue-based card draw engine, nor Yawghmoth's will, the black spells are quite powerful.

@Karsten, excellent article as always. Delver should have been a red non-flyer. (flip when you top deck a lightning bolt).
Blue could then have all these crappy black tutors wizards insist printing in every expansion:p

[Barook]

We need cards like GSZ that help build new archetypes that are inherently strong against blue strategies.

That's easier said than done. What can the other colors do to increase deck consistency like blue?

Ok, black has card draw and tutors. Except they don't print the good stuff anymore.

Looting in red is nice, but still has a long way to go. Gamble effects are too risky and inconsistent to really increase consistency.

And how is white supposed to be getting better at library manipulation? More creature-based search spells like SFM, rebels and Ranger of Eos? Maybe a color-shifted Imperial Recruiter variant?

[Shawon]

I disagree strongly about the effectiveness of black discard;
with neither a blue-based card draw engine, nor Yawghmoth's will, the black spells are quite powerful.

I assume this is directed at me. I don't get what you're trying to say by bringing up Vintage. We have at least one blue-based card draw engine in Legacy, Time Spiral, and I know from experience how futile discard is against Time Spiral. EDIT: Besides, my point is that Brainstorm is why discard is weak right now.

[Final Fortune]

That's easier said than done. What can the other colors do to increase deck consistency like blue?

Ok, black has card draw and tutors. Except they don't print the good stuff anymore.

Looting in red is nice, but still has a long way to go. Gamble effects are too risky and inconsistent to really increase consistency.

And how is white supposed to be getting better at library manipulation? More creature-based search spells like SFM, rebels and Ranger of Eos? Maybe a color-shifted Imperial Recruiter variant?

Regading Gamble, I've wondered what exactly is the threshold between card selection and card advantage combined with a randomized effect that people would accept, for instance would you play this card;

1R, Sorcery

Search your deck for two different cards, your opponent chooses a card and you discard that card. The remaining card goes into your hand.

or would you play this card;

1R, Instant

Draw 4 cards and then discard 2 cards at random.

There has to be a point where cost efficiency and card selection/advantage are worth the random factor for red effects.

or would you play this card;

R, Instant

Draw 2 cards, discard 1 card at random.
Flashback, 2R

There's plenty of design space here.

[Sloshthedark]

Excellent article... Imho it needs more decision based power cards and color inteligent spells, well you summed that up well

And most of all it needs experienced players and less copy-paste deckbuilding

[Barook]

Regarding the Psychotic Episode comment:

I think the Fateseal mechanic (e.g. on Spin into Myth, rather well-known for JMS' +2) should be shifted to black.

Denying draws is a rather black mechanic and it goes very well with discard:

Destroy their hand now, then reduce the number of actual topdecks later.

A discard spell for :b: (with whatever manageable drawback) that also does Fateseal 2 would actually be a decent way for discard to fight Brainstorm and consorts.

[Hardcore]

@shawon,barook

seriously, if you tried adapt your playstyle you would have no problems with brainstorm.
If you play second and your opponent has not played ponder on his first turn, what do you do?

1. play discard anyway because;
a) the odds are less than 50% he has one in hand.
b) you are content with pulling a card, along with the info you get. (cabal therapy ftw)

2. play dark ritual to try push him into forcing it.
If he does you have just played a Hymn for B.
If he don't doesn't you can play a suitable combination of spells and creatures.
For example Inquisition of Kozilek and Dark Confidant.

3. Play a creature. Start build up the pressure. Grave crawler is especially nice for this.
Next turn you can either play Iok's and therapies to totally rape your opponents hand,
or play more dudes.

@shawon,
ten years ago you could, in vintage, completly empty an opponents hand, and still lose the game next turn! They only had to top deck a brain storm, or something else. Next they played Yawgmoth's will and all your discard was for nothing. In fact hate cards were better than discard.
Null rods and chalice of the void preferably.
This is obviously not the situation in legacy today. If you pull a card it usually stays in the graveyard.

Also there are no Gush or Arcane knowledge in the format.
You opponent can't just negate your discard with a good refill spell.
Fact is the environment for discard in legacy is one if the best in the history of magic.

[HammerAndSickled]

In regards to Red needing effective anti-Blue and anti-Combo applications, would a cheap mini-Wheel (meaning we all discard, then draw up to what we had before) be effective? Feldman's Dredge occasionally used Winds of Change as sideboard tech to slow down combos that take several pieces to assemble, yet I've never seen anyone else use that effect.

[CorwinB]

In regards to Red needing effective anti-Blue and anti-Combo applications, would a cheap mini-Wheel (meaning we all discard, then draw up to what we had before) be effective? Feldman's Dredge occasionally used Winds of Change as sideboard tech to slow down combos that take several pieces to assemble, yet I've never seen anyone else use that effect.

Obviously not the same environment, but I remember reading an article by Andy Probasco on Vintage where he said he didn't mind playing T1 Timetwister against combo decks that had not taken a mulligan because for them it was like drawing your first seven cards without being able to ship them back... IIRC, he developed that play based on numerous "Can I mulligan this ?" comments by people hit by Timetwister.

[Shawon]

@Hardcore

I never said I have a problem against Brainstorm. You're using specific examples as why discard is good against Brainstorm, with mono-black as a reference and let's be honest, mono-black is sub-tier. Your examples still don't contradict why discard isn't a strong option against decks with Brainstorm. All they need to do is hide their most important card. You can apply pressure, but having their main card on the top of their deck isn't going to slow them down too much, especially if they Brainstormed in resp to your discard and they untap right after. Your discard can't do anything to a SnT player that's just Brainstormed their SnT / Griselbrand on top of their deck.

Discard, like counters, burn or any other fundamental strategy, can be "good" when you pair it with another strategy such as applying pressure etc. All I'm saying is that discard is weak by itself. If the design space for discard was expanded, then better discard spells could be printed to be used along with the current arsenal of discard to make Black a stronger control color like it used to be.

[HammerAndSickled]

Obviously not the same environment, but I remember reading an article by Andy Probasco on Vintage where he said he didn't mind playing T1 Timetwister against combo decks that had not taken a mulligan because for them it was like drawing your first seven cards without being able to ship them back... IIRC, he developed that play based on numerous "Can I mulligan this ?" comments by people hit by Timetwister.

Yeah, that's exactly the point. Brainstorm lets blue decks run less land and build shakier decks overall because blue filtration makes them more consistent. So turn 2-3 pulling a mini-wheel might just screw them over enough to give you the turns to finish them off?

Maybe I'll put my money where my mouth is and sideboard Winds of Change against storm combo, haha!

[Mr Miagi]

What magic needs is Thoughtseize with scry 2 for oponents library :laugh:

/end of trolling

[Hardcore]

@shawon


There are two big reasons why black discard sucks right now: topdecks and Brainstorm. Ignoring Psychotic Episode's mana costs, you can clearly see that its effect not only targets your opponent's hand, but it also targets your opponent's topdeck or a card that your opponent Brainstormed on the top. I think if modern black discard targeted the topdeck in addition to your opponent's hand, Brainstorm wouldn't be as powerful a solution to discard as it is now and black would be a stronger color.

well, maybe you didn't SAY it but it was implied, expecially in your quote.



my point is that Brainstorm is why discard is weak right now.

and MY point is that this is not the case, and that any opinion of that kind is because you do not adapt to the game, but prefer ask for more powerful hate spells. Ie. the reverse of the Ban bandwagon.

Brainstorm do let players hide valuable cards, but it doesn't prevent the discard effect, right?
So, your opponent may hide his good spells, but the net effect, however, is that he will be delayed since he lack a draw engine. To get those card back in his hand he must draw them one by one. Thus Thoughtseize is a timewalk for one black mana, which is quite good, don't you agree?

Brainstorm have marginal effect on the viability of discard in this format. It is the ability to get back cards from the graveyard that is the bane of discard. Past in Flames is a prime example.


Discard, like counters, burn or any other fundamental strategy, can be "good" when you pair it with another strategy such as applying pressure etc. All I'm saying is that discard is weak by itself. If the design space for discard was expanded, then better discard spells could be printed to be used along with the current arsenal of discard to make Black a stronger control color like it used to be.

Indeed, Discard cannot win the game by itself. However it is weak only in the sense that counterspells is better disruption than discard ever was. The problem is rather that it is to few good players that design and play black decks.

[JDK]

I was vainly searching for a rant about the miracle mechanic. :(

Anyway, I can completely share your concerns about Wizards neglecting red. Where's the Stoneforge/Thalia, Snapcaster, Goyf or Confidant for 1R?

[feline]

Maybe 1R 's is Price of progress or Goblin Piledriver, though the latter confine's it to a tribe. I suppose a card that works on so many different fronts for red for 1R, there just isn't

[thefringthing]

Very happy about this article. I agree on all points. I hope someone in R&D reads it.

[Shawon]

well, maybe you didn't SAY it but it was implied, expecially in your quote.

No, I did not IMPLY anything about MYSELF having a problem with Brainstorm. Read the quote again and discern the difference between stating an assertion and stating an opinion.


and MY point is that this is not the case, and that any opinion of that kind is because you do not adapt to the game, but prefer ask for more powerful hate spells. Ie. the reverse of the Ban bandwagon.

I'll repeat myself, I never said I had a problem with Brainstorm. Stop making shit up.


Brainstorm do let players hide valuable cards, but it doesn't prevent the discard effect, right? So, your opponent may hide his good spells, but the net effect, however, is that he will be delayed since he lack a draw engine. To get those card back in his hand he must draw them one by one. Thus Thoughtseize is a timewalk for one black mana, which is quite good, don't you agree?

If we're talking about SnT, not really, especially if you have no outs if it resolves. Anyway, that example wasn't conveying what I was trying to say. Many times an opponent just needs to protect one specific card. A SnT player can have >1 redundant combo piece and 1 Show and Tell. On turn 2, they would just need to protect their SnT from a Thoughtseize with Brainstorm before casting Snt on turn 3.

Needless to say, Brainstorm is also good at finding an auxiliary combo piece if one has already been discarded.


However it is weak only in the sense that counterspells is better disruption than discard ever was. The problem is rather that it is to few good players that design and play black decks.

Counters are better than discard because they can counter an opponent's topdecked spell on the stack. Discard can't do anything against the topdeck once it's drawn. I'm suggesting expanding the design space of discard to hit topdecks to address a problem, not because of my own incapability of adapting.

[Hardcore]

my apologies.

As for it being a problem I don't see it. Brainstorm is a good card, but it is just a cantrip.
SnT on the other hand is far stronger.
In fact I don't care about Brainstorm in control decks. They can dig for StP, but so what?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Brainstorm is a good card, but it is just a cantrip.


No, it's not. It's a Sift. There's a pretty huge distinction.

It's actually interesting question how good a cantrip would have to be to catch up to Brainstorm in power, but my suspicion is that a Ponder for 4 or even 5 cards would still be weaker because of the inability to swap out bad cards for good.

[JDK]

Maybe 1R 's is Price of progress or Goblin Piledriver, though the latter confine's it to a tribe. I suppose a card that works on so many different fronts for red for 1R, there just isn't

PoP isn't a creature and Piledriver is way too specific to be on the same powerlevel. Anyway, that was a rhetorical question. ;)

[ceustice]

Anyway, I can completely share your concerns about Wizards neglecting red. Where's the Stoneforge/Thalia, Snapcaster, Goyf or Confidant for 1R?

This is exactly my thinking red does need so dudes like these, and I'd love to see more spells like GSZ in other colors. GSZ being one of the best spells printed in years IMO.

[Hardcore]

but green sun Zenith really only support splashed decks right now. Mono green is still mainly combo elves. Btw it should have cost XGG; otherwise will all future good green creatures end up in splashed decks.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

Happy to see so much feedback and discussion, seems I struck a nerve. I appreciate all the comments, and I'm happy to see I seem to have covered most concerns. A few selected answers:

@Shawon: Psychotic Episode style discard and Fateseal in general seems like an interesting area to explore for black. Having black library manipulation not be about making your draws better but there's worth definitely feels black at heart.

@Koby: Yeah, obviously a lot of what I wrote was based on things I heard or read at some point. I don't think I saw the "abuse the rotating nature of standard to print legacy cards" elaborated on before, though.

@Hollywood and others who think Legacy at the moment is fine: I totally agree that Legacy is at a very good point right now. We have a ton of variety strategically and games are incredibly complex and results are extremely skill-based. And yes, there clearly is a lot of room for creativity to reap rewards that needs exploring while many players are too lazy to do so.
I still feel letting Wizards know which cards we think had a positive impact on how the game plays out and which ones make games feel worse is very worthwhile as far as the future of Legacy and Magic as a whole is concerned.

@Mr Miagi: Sure, whiners gonna whine. That being said, just because a lot of people will call for unnecessary bans and complain about pointless stuff, that doesn't mean those that think differently should shut up. On the contrary, the only way to counteract the whining is for calmer minds to also make their voice heard.
Fact is I'm convinced WotC is listening to the player base, if only because it's in their own interest to make sure they sell as many cards as possible. At that point articulating our thoughts clearly is the best way to get what we want out of the game in the future.
Also, for the record, while I'm sad an engine as fun as Survival had to leave the format, I think it was correct to ban it when it happened if only to preserve strategic variety among creature-based decks. Survival decks were beatable, that wasn't the biggest problem, though. The problem is that it just didn't make sense to build a creature-based deck around any other engine as long as Survival/Vengevine was available.

@IBA: So you don't think Tendrils-Storm is a tier 1 archetype? Interesting.
As for the "format needs more efficient threats thing, in some ways, yes. I don't think it needs more Delvers or Geists, though, blue or not blue.

@Finn: Totally agree, making skill matter more whatever colors you decide to play would be awesome. I don't see how you can do that while avoiding some type of library manipulation effects in the other colors as one of the biggest things holding the skill-level of non-blue decks down is the inability to adjust what you have to what is going on in play. Hence why I'd like to see library manipulation that fits each colors flavor.

@Mewens: Yeah, some other way to make playable non-blue hate aside from giving it a bear-body would be sweet. Powerful hate cantrips maybe?
I agree that creatures were to weak far back in the past and I feel like things like KotR and Tarmogoyf actually hit a sweet spot as far as power level is concerned. SFM might be a little too good (when figuring in Batterskull) and Delver is, imo, above the curve of where creatures should be. To be honest I feel KotR perfectly hits the sweet spot where creatures are impressive enough to be very relevant without being oppressive and bad for gameplay.

@Shawon/Hardcore/IBA: Let's not turn this into another Brainstorm discussion.

@Hardcore:
but green sun Zenith really only support splashed decks right now. Mono green is still mainly combo elves. Btw it should have cost XGG; otherwise will all future good green creatures end up in splashed decks.
Actually, I feel like GSZ perfectly avoids being too splashable because it asks for green creature targets. Having GG in the cost would kill GSZ if only because paying 4 for a 2-drop isn't efficient enough.
Maverick, the primary GSZ deck other than Elves (which is mono green, or nearly so) definitely isn't a green splash deck. It's a full blown GW deck. If your complaint is that the deck isn't mono green, you should embrace the nature of a Dual/Fetch format a little more. True monocolor decks have been, are and will always remain quite rare in Legacy as long as duals don't get banned.

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

This article was awesome, Carsten. Well-stated quality content. To me, the most important points come down to:
Delver of Secrets and Griselbrand are two representative cards of everything that's wrong with Legacy (and really, contemporary Magic card design).
Green Sun's Zenith and Thalia, while obnoxious, are steps in the right direction. Next up, Red needs something(s) that's not just another sideboard option for blue mirrors and Black needs something(s) that make it playable outside of combo. More mono-red or mono-black garbage not included.

Something I disagree on is this idea surrounding the sanctity of the color pie. Yes, the colors should act differently. They should have their own strengths and weaknesses. But they absolutely don't need to be, nor should they be, equal on power level or depth in every format.

No color should be unplayable in any format, but there also shouldn't be some kind of push to equalize them. Let Eternal be where blue cards win, let Standard be where green cards win. In the mean time, no more dumb garbage that wrecks the balance like Delver.

[Kich867]

Standard at the moment actually, to me at least, has an unprecedented equality amongst the colors. RG Aggro, mono G infect, black control decks, black zombie decks, UW tempo decks, esper control decks, this is probably the most diverse I've seen standard in awhile.

[Gheizen64]

Good article, i loved the mention of Academy. So many lovable cards on the Banned list while Delver (black vise don't be sad) and Griselbrand (Yawgwin isn't alone anymore) and Emrakul (welcome to magic, Yu-gi-oh Exxodia) roam the land undisturbed.

[Jenni]

great article.

regarding the imbalance between colours, I think it's overstated a bit. Sure, most of the best decks are going to have blue - but you also have:
Enchantress (G/W, one of my fav. decks)
Goblins (Mono-R or R/b or R/g)
Elf (mono-G or G/w)
Painter (Can be mono-R)
Zombies (B/r, Dunno if this is an actual deck, or just Sam Black showing he can win with anything)
Maverick (G/W/x)
The Rock (G/B)
Pox (mono-B)
Burn (mono-R, again not sure how much of a deck this is though)
Affinity (Brown with a splash of thoughtcast)
Zoo (R/G/W, though I've seen people trying delver-zoo of late)
Lands (I've seen a few that seem to have no blue, but I don't know the list for lands that well tbh)
Not to mention room for invention - there are a lot of less common brews like mono-green infect floating around that can do pretty well in the right meta.

So, every colour has it's place in the meta game, and a lot of decks work well without a significant amount of blue. Though I admit, playing without Force in a combo-heavy metagame can be pretty discouraging.
I agree, though, that as a whole, legacy needs more varied general answers to the "I win" decks. As is, Force is the best general solution, and seeing some more general cards outside of force(which demands a solid amount of blue) that can stop fast combos would be great.
Regarding cards like emrakul, though, I don't think they are an actual problem... Once they stick, you basically lost the game, but some combo hate goes a long way to stopping them, and being able to combo out a turn 3-4 emrakul is something I personally love about legacy - it's an interesting way to win a game, it has vulnerabilities (karakas, force, duress, daze, humility). It's not actually unbeatable, and it's easy enough to play and build that a new legacy player can jump right in with a simple show and tell combo, but vulnerable enough that someone with some experiance and a fair deck can still have a positive matchup against it.

Griselbrand I don't like, though, I somewhat hope he finds his way to the ban list, because unlike other show and tell/reanimate targets, even if you get rid of him, it's too late. Swords him? they just drew 14 cards in response and can combo a new one out. karakas? they drew 7-14 cards in response, and put him right back out there off their 2nd show and tell. Unlike other reanimation/Show and tell/etc. targets, griselbrand literally only needs to touch the battlefield to basically win the game, where almost everything else needs to, at a minimum, make it to the combat step.
Omniscience I'm not sure about, on one hand, like griselbrand, you can get value off of it the second it hits the battlefield, because you have priority once it resolves to cast any sorcery-speed card, and even if it gets bounced/destroyed in response, you can get free instants off of it, including free counters to protect it etc.... I don't know, I just don't know the card well enough to say either way, but my gut feeling is that it's not something you can really beat, once it touches the field, unless the person playing it really screwed something up.

[Tammit67]

great article.

regarding the imbalance between colours, I think it's overstated a bit. Sure, most of the best decks are going to have blue - but you also have:
Enchantress (G/W, one of my fav. decks)
Hates thalia

Goblins (Mono-R or R/b or R/g) Not good enough

Elf (mono-G or G/w) Inconsistent

Painter (Can be mono-R) Hasn't put up results in forever

Zombies (B/r, Dunno if this is an actual deck, or just Sam Black showing he can win with anything)Just sam black showing he can win with anything

Maverick (G/W/x)That's one deck

The Rock (G/B)One top 8 recently

Pox (mono-B)Is bad

Burn (mono-R, again not sure how much of a deck this is though) more of a deck than painter or pox

Affinity (Brown with a splash of thoughtcast)Meh

Zoo (R/G/W, though I've seen people trying delver-zoo of late)Mostly because they are from North VA and Lazy (I'm looking at you dave price)

Lands (I've seen a few that seem to have no blue, but I don't know the list for lands that well tbh)Some random success, due to others inexperience in the matchup

Not to mention room for invention - there are a lot of less common brews like mono-green infect floating around that can do pretty well in the right meta.


But they are not close to good!

[Phoenix Ignition]

Not much to add, great article though and I agree with literally everything you said!

[Lord Seth]

Despite supposedly being about Legacy, the article talked a fair amount about Standard, and I have some comments on that based on my experience in the format.

Specifically, this bit:
"...for me, personally, cards like Delver of Secrets (I really seem to hate that guy, huh?) and Geist of Saint Traft are the true offenders, not Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage. I'm fine having a spell countered as long as I'm not being beaten down by an evasive three-power one-drop or a six-power three-drop that is incredibly hard to kill outside of creature combat."

I think that--in Standard--to try to point fingers as to what make Delver decks (especially UW Delver) so dominant (or at least most popular) is to miss the point. It isn't any particular card that made it the dominant deck, it's a combination. Delver of Secrets gives you a strong incentive to play Instants and Sorceries, and lots of them. Snapcaster Mage gives you more incentive to do that. Then you get Ponder and Mana Leak, which are a Sorcery and an Instant and work well with those cards, Ponder allowing you to better stack your deck and Mana Leak letting you protect everything pretty efficiently and being especially great with Snapcaster Mage. And all of these cards are the same color. Without all of these things, Delver loses a lot of its shine.

In fact, I decided to look into what's often an overlooked format, Block. In this format, Delver of Secrets is legal (as is Snapcaster Mage) but neither Mana Leak nor Ponder is. So let's take a look at some of the big Innistrad Block tournaments. How did Delver of Secrets do?

Number of Delvers in the Avacyn Restored Pro Tour Top 8? Zero. Number of Delvers among all decks that got 18 points or more in the 10 Swiss rounds? Zero. Number of Delvers in the top 8 of Grand Prix Anaheim? Zero. Number of Delvers in the decks that went undefeated Day 1 of the Anaheim GP? Zero.

Now to be fair, in the top 32 of the Magic Online Champion Series (also a Block tournament, check it out here (http://www.wizards.com/magic/digital/magiconlinetourn.aspx?x=mtg/digital/magiconline/tourn/3891173)), there were two decks with Delver of Secrets, which took 7th place and 28th place. But this is still a far cry from the Standard tournament a month later (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Digital/MagicOnlineTourn.aspx?x=mtg/digital/magiconline/tourn/4002985), where decks playing Delver of Secrets took 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 19th, 20th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 32nd.

What this seems to strongly support is that, again, Delver isn't the problem in Standard (if you consider it a problem to begin with, supposedly Standard attendance is up so it seems plenty of people enjoy the current format). It's the fact that in the format there are cards it combines so well with to become fearsome. So I feel that saying "it's not the fault of Snapcaster Mage or Mana Leak, it's Delver of Secrets!" (or vice versa, for that matter) isn't valid. It's all of them that combined to make Delver decks so strong. But I guess we'll see more surely when we discover how the deck is affected by the loss of cards like Ponder and Mana Leak when Magic 2012 rotates out.

I also don't share the enmity towards Geist of Saint Traft. I think the article overstates the difficulty of killing it outside of combat (I've seen tons of Geists die outside of combat--certainly, it's harder than your regular non-hexproof creature, but there's ways to deal with it), and that also ignores how easy it is to kill it in combat, considering any creature with power 2 or greater finishes it off. And this is especially relevant because the whole point of Geist is to actually attack with it, forcing it into combat. This isn't like Dungrove Elder or Thrun, where you can hang back and play defense with your big hexproof creature if you need to, Geist needs to be attacking to be decent. It's a strong card, surely, but I don't see it as problematic.

[Ignithas_]

Despite supposedly being about Legacy, the article talked a fair amount about Standard, and I have some comments on that based on my experience in the format.

Specifically, this bit:
"...for me, personally, cards like Delver of Secrets (I really seem to hate that guy, huh?) and Geist of Saint Traft are the true offenders, not Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage. I'm fine having a spell countered as long as I'm not being beaten down by an evasive three-power one-drop or a six-power three-drop that is incredibly hard to kill outside of creature combat."

I think that--in Standard--to try to point fingers as to what make Delver decks (especially UW Delver) so dominant (or at least most popular) is to miss the point. It isn't any particular card that made it the dominant deck, it's a combination. Delver of Secrets gives you a strong incentive to play Instants and Sorceries, and lots of them. Snapcaster Mage gives you more incentive to do that. Then you get Ponder and Mana Leak, which are a Sorcery and an Instant and work well with those cards, Ponder allowing you to better stack your deck and Mana Leak letting you protect everything pretty efficiently and being especially great with Snapcaster Mage. And all of these cards are the same color. Without all of these things, Delver loses a lot of its shine.

In fact, I decided to look into what's often an overlooked format, Block. In this format, Delver of Secrets is legal (as is Snapcaster Mage) but neither Mana Leak nor Ponder is. So let's take a look at some of the big Innistrad Block tournaments. How did Delver of Secrets do?

Number of Delvers in the Avacyn Restored Pro Tour Top 8? Zero. Number of Delvers among all decks that got 18 points or more in the 10 Swiss rounds? Zero. Number of Delvers in the top 8 of Grand Prix Anaheim? Zero. Number of Delvers in the decks that went undefeated Day 1 of the Anaheim GP? Zero.

Now to be fair, in the top 32 of the Magic Online Champion Series (also a Block tournament, check it out here (http://www.wizards.com/magic/digital/magiconlinetourn.aspx?x=mtg/digital/magiconline/tourn/3891173)), there were two decks with Delver of Secrets, which took 7th place and 28th place. But this is still a far cry from the Standard tournament a month later (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Digital/MagicOnlineTourn.aspx?x=mtg/digital/magiconline/tourn/4002985), where decks playing Delver of Secrets took 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th, 19th, 20th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, and 32nd.

What this seems to strongly support is that, again, Delver isn't the problem in Standard (if you consider it a problem to begin with, supposedly Standard attendance is up so it seems plenty of people enjoy the current format). It's the fact that in the format there are cards it combines so well with to become fearsome. So I feel that saying "it's not the fault of Snapcaster Mage or Mana Leak, it's Delver of Secrets!" (or vice versa, for that matter) isn't valid. It's all of them that combined to make Delver decks so strong. But I guess we'll see more surely when we discover how the deck is affected by the loss of cards like Ponder and Mana Leak when Magic 2012 rotates out.

I also don't share the enmity towards Geist of Saint Traft. I think the article overstates the difficulty of killing it outside of combat (I've seen tons of Geists die outside of combat--certainly, it's harder than your regular non-hexproof creature, but there's ways to deal with it), and that also ignores how easy it is to kill it in combat, considering any creature with power 2 or greater finishes it off. And this is especially relevant because the whole point of Geist is to actually attack with it, forcing it into combat. This isn't like Dungrove Elder or Thrun, where you can hang back and play defense with your big hexproof creature if you need to, Geist needs to be attacking to be decent. It's a strong card, surely, but I don't see it as problematic.

I think that Delver is the actual problem. While I think that Snapcaster Mage is on the same powerlevel, Snapcaster Mage doesn't support such an agressive gameplan than Delver does. And that both get exponentially much stronger with cantrips and counters, while it proves that the synergy makes the deck stronger, doesn't prove that the card is fine. One similar case was SFM and Jace. SFM was on a moderate powerlevel without the Swords of x and y, very strong with them, and way too strong with Batterskull. So SFM was the problem, although she needs other cards to be on that high powerlevel. And while the eagles also get exponentially stronger with the Swords, neither the eagles nor the Swords were considered as the problem.

[Hardcore]

it just occurred to me that what black would like is discard that is not dead draws in mid and late game. Think of an IoK that has the addition; ", or scry 1 and draw a card".
Or think Funeral charm but with better discard ability.

[wcm8]

I agree with a lot of what is said in the article.

I think that they are making decent efforts towards throwing some bones to the Eternal crowd by printing new and interesting cards in non-Standard/Modern-legal products (e.g. Scavenging Ooze, Baleful Strix, etc.), but they could certainly try to do it more often. I also think they could try to print some new 'cornerstone' cards that could have strategies built around them, rather than just cards that slot into pre-existing decks.

They are also able to print good sideboard cards with Eternal format implications, such as Grafdigger's Cage, without affecting Standard too much. Cards like this allow degenerate strategies/cards avoid the banhammer while still giving most decks a decent answer to them if they become too problematic. I think this sort of thing will continue.

I would like to see Red get it's 1R god-tier creature, and would also like to see black get a power boost in the form of some better creatures and spells (is there any reason why black doesn't have a better 1cmc removal spell yet? Print it in a Commander product if you must...)

[nedleeds]

it just occurred to me that what black would like is discard that is not dead draws in mid and late game. Think of an IoK that has the addition; ", or scry 1 and draw a card".
Or think Funeral charm but with better discard ability.

I think R&D is hesitant to print instant speed discard. New players just don't understand magic well enough to know how it works.

This thread about what ails legacy contains all my favorite internet MtG-eGenius catch phrases

"Skill intensive"
"Format defining"
"You whine about cards, you must suck at Magic and life!"

"What Legacy Needs" is for dci to realize there are certain cards that are not banned, that have a power level far greater than other cards that reside on the banned list. Which logically leads to one (or both) options, ban those cards or unban some weaker cards.

The format has quite a few "kinds" of decks

Brainstorm decks (RUG, U/w control, SneakShow, Reanimator, U/w/x Blade, TES, ANT) (60% of an average large field)
W/g / W aggro/resource denial (20%)
Tribal (15%)
Decks that don't play magic and just hope to avoid hate (Belcher, Dredge, Burn)
Other (Lands, Enchantress, Chalice decks)

The last two make up some random portion of a large tourney. At first glance you say, the format is diverse. But it's really not that diverse. 60% of the field uses the same blue cards. In order of necessity.

- Brainstorm
- Ponder
- Force of Will

Starting with Brainstorm. In conjunction with fetchlands Brainstorm is above the power level of many colored spells on the banned list. Brainstorm is found in the following decks:

- The best combo deck(s)
- The best control deck(s)
- The best aggro deck (RUG)

This is obviously absurd. It does so many things for so little mana and it replaces itself.

- It filters and improves your card quality
- It allows for freakishly tight mana bases, which further creates mid-game gas
- It castrates targeted discard (especially on the play)
- It (when played properly with unneeded sandbagged lands) is as close to Ancestral as a mid game top deck

Based on power level, ubiquity and even arguably cheatz opportunity it deserves to be banned.

The immediate retort from the internet faithful who can't read or comprehend is typically one of the following:

"I'd quit if they banned Brainstorm"
"Format defining"
"You suck. It's skill intensive."

None of these answer the question, is Brainstorm powerful enough to merit banning given the other cards currently on the banned list. The answer to that is absolutely yes.

The first statement doesn't even mean anything, quitting over a cards banning means you didn't really like the format anyway you either just liked a single card or just just liked winning and not playing.

The second, "Format defining" is at least a point of discussion. If a colored cantrip defines a format, I might say that that format probably sucks and is slanted towards that color. I'd would hope that the versatile mana bases enabled by fetches, duals and wasteland define the legacy format.

The third statement isn't a consideration for banning. Yawgmoth's Will is skill intensive. It's banned because it's power level is absurd with respect to everything else that's on the banned list. Also, internet white knights that defend Brainstorms skill-intensiveness often completely dismiss other 100 other cards that are absolutely just as difficult to play optimally. Examples are numerous, targeted discard, jace, force of will, sylvan library, top, doomsday, daze, knight of the reliquary. Brainstorm actually makes magic easier, not harder. It salvages awful hands, cures mana flood or mana screw, salvages mid game lulls, solves targeted discard.

Back to ban or unban. Ask yourself, if they unbanned something like Earthcraft after you added 4 Earthcraft and 4 nests what are the next 4 cards you'd add to enable your combo? I'd add 4 brainstorms. If they unbanned WGD how would you craft a hand with your 2 card combo? I'd play brainstorm and ponder. How about Mind Twist ... ? Shit you better bet brainstorm would be played like wildfire in any format with Mind Twist as both players would jockey for hand protection.

Let's take another step back and imagine that they banned Brainstorm. Any deck that ran 4 x brainstorm, 4 x ponder would likely attempt to substitute the next best cantrip - preordain. They'd likely still be powerful and consistent. I'd argue combo decks would lose the most as they are trying to get redundant combo parts out of their hand for situationally more valuable cards (i.e. the other part of the combo), neither Ponder or Preordain solves the problem of having 2 Griselbrands in your hand.

I'd say start with more unbannings, I think it would become clear what card enables consistency in degeneracy.

What legacy needs is to remove or reduce the crutch of Brainstorm from the format, it powers the best aggro deck, the best combo deck and the best control deck.

/endrant

[Zilla]

At first glance you say, the format is diverse. But it's really not that diverse. 60% of the field uses the same blue cards.
You're saying there's not a significant difference between RUG and ANT because they use the same 3 blue cards? What planet are you from?

Your arbitrary division of "deck types" is preposterous. TES and ANT are similar deck types. U/w Control and Reanimator are not even remotely similar deck types.

The format is incredibly diverse, and the existence of Brainstorm does nothing to diminish that. If anything, it does the opposite by lending consistency to decks that might not otherwise be viable.

[nedleeds]

You're saying there's not a significant difference between RUG and ANT because they use the same 3 blue cards? What planet are you from?

Your arbitrary division of "deck types" is preposterous. TES and ANT are similar deck types. U/w Control and Reanimator are not even remotely similar deck types.

The format is incredibly diverse, and the existence of Brainstorm does nothing to diminish that. If anything, it does the opposite by lending consistency to decks that might not otherwise be viable.

It's not diverse. You have to play island to play the overwhelmingly best card in the format. It's preposterous that one card is the best card in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and best combo deck. No other format can boast that kind of ubiquity. Whether you think that its 'good' or 'bad' is certainly personal opinion.

[Aggro_zombies]

It's not diverse. You have to play island to play the overwhelmingly best card in the format. It's preposterous that one card is the best card in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and best combo deck. No other format can boast that kind of ubiquity. Whether you think that its 'good' or 'bad' is certainly personal opinion.
Oh man, fetchlands are so totally broken. Combo decks play them, aggro decks play them, and control decks play them. Sure, you can mono_color_budget.jank, but if you want to do really well you have to play fetchlands. No other format right now is so defined by cards like this. They stifle innovation because it's just so much better to fetch for splash colors than to be mono, and the drawbacks are negligible.

Man, we should really ban fetchlands.

And in other news, I don't understand why people still complain about a nuts-and-bolts card like Brainstorm. Does your pet deck lose to blue too much? It's probably not viable then, considering the incredible diversity in play styles, speed, and resilience of blue decks.

[Julian23]

What Zilla said still upholds.

Diversity is not about color but about decks. There are about 10 different decks that - despite all playing blue - provide a whole different kind of playing experience. Most of them share one, sometimes two tactical tools (BS & Force) while operating in completely different ways strategically.

[wcm8]

Thanks for derailing the thread. Unless your main point is, in fact, that banning Brainstorm is what Legacy needs. This position is certainly intriguing, though I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to a desirable result. Wouldn't certain combo decks theoretically be -stronger- now that opposing control decks would not have an efficient instant that could dig for a counterspell, not to mention they couldn't hide their piece of hate from targeted discard?

It also seems to me that plenty of decks that don't play Brainstorm beat on Brainstorm-decks pretty hard. e.g. Goblins, Merfolk, Maverick, etc.

I think the counterpoint that Carsten put forth was that other colors needs cheap/efficient methods of deck manipulation. We are seeing that to some extent with Red's looting, Green Sun Zenith, etc. Obviously we could use more to give other colors a chance of playing a RUG-esque style deck construction without needing to dip into blue. I'm all for printing cards that reduce the inherent randomness of opening hands/topdecks and increase the likelihood of interaction.

[Iron Buddha]

I’m actually fine that Black doesn’t have a good T1 removal spell except for untargeted Innocent Blood and Ghastly Demise that requires a lot of Fetchlands to work on T1. My reasoning is that you don’t want every color to be the same. Each color should be distinctly different from each other. That being said, I don’t think Black is as bad as some make it to be; its potential is just not fully utilized. One of the best examples is Vampire Nighthawk. Vampire Nighthawk is so blatantly power-creeped, but actually not very much played. If you disagree on how good he is ask the people from The Gate thread.

[Aggro_zombies]

I’m actually fine that Black doesn’t have a good T1 removal spell except for untargeted Innocent Blood and Ghastly Demise that requires a lot of Fetchlands to work on T1. My reasoning is that you don’t want every color to be the same. Each color should be distinctly different from each other. That being said, I don’t think Black is as bad as some make it to be; its potential is just not fully utilized. One of the best examples is Vampire Nighthawk. Vampire Nighthawk is so blatantly power-creeped, but actually not very much played. If you disagree on how good he is ask the people from The Gate thread.
The rewards are just not there for black. If you want removal, white has better. If you want draw, blue has better. If you want creatures, green has better large ones and white-green has better disruptive ones. Discard doesn't stack up favorably against a format full of good, cheap library manipulation (Brainstorm, Ponder, Top, Sylvan Library, Green Sun's Zenith). There aren't enough good black cards to justify committing to the color - and you really need to commit to the color, considering how mana of those cards are :b::b:.

[nedleeds]

Man, we should really ban fetchlands.

And in other news, I don't understand why people still complain about a nuts-and-bolts card like Brainstorm. Does your pet deck lose to blue too much? It's probably not viable then, considering the incredible diversity in play styles, speed, and resilience of blue decks.

This standard response to this Brainstorm defense is pretty easy. You've echoed a standard reply, that lands are ubiquitous thus ban lands. Any deck can use lands, any deck can use fetch lands. Lands are necessary to play Magic (with rare vintage or belcher exceptions).

Nuts-n-bolts ... WTF does that even mean? Why is a blue instant a nuts and bolts (by that I assume you mean crucial to building decks????) card?

You nearly went for the triple crown of brainstorm defenders with your second response, of you suck your Shining Shoal deck can't beat Brainstorm that's why you want it banned.

Please edit your post to include "skill intensive" so you can score an A in all 3.

[DragoFireheart]

It's not diverse. You have to play island to play the overwhelmingly best card in the format. It's preposterous that one card is the best card in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and best combo deck. No other format can boast that kind of ubiquity. Whether you think that its 'good' or 'bad' is certainly personal opinion.

Lack of color diversity != Lack of deck diversity.

You might have a point if the top decks overwhelmingly only consisted of the same 2-3 decks, which isn't the case.

[Snap_Keep]

Nedleeds please take your whining to the appropriate thread.

It's uncool to hijack someone's thread to beat a dead horse.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation./page191

[nedleeds]

Thanks for derailing the thread. Unless your main point is, in fact, that banning Brainstorm is what Legacy needs. This position is certainly intriguing, though I'm not sure it would necessarily lead to a desirable result. Wouldn't certain combo decks theoretically be -stronger- now that opposing control decks would not have an efficient instant that could dig for a counterspell, not to mention they couldn't hide their piece of hate from targeted discard?


I won't lose any sleep either way. I'd prefer some more unbannings first, then when it becomes obvious what the enabler is (as if it isn't already) deal with it then. But as I state in my post, unbanning certain cards would just see them land in Brainstorm decks.

I think combo TES/ANT/SneakShow needs Brainstorm more than control. Control is looking for redundant defensive spells to survive early (FoW, Pierce, Snare). They can afford to Ponder to fix mana and pass the turn. Combo (at least in Legacy) is filled with redundant cards that are awful in multiples (Sneak Attack, Show and Tell, Hive Mind) ... or ... cards that you need later (the TES deck searching early for protection or discard and then abusing Brainstorm later on the stack). Combo also can't afford to have a 3 land opener, at least without a fetch and a Brainstorm. Control decks are often looking to build mana past 4 or 5. Starting with 3 lands a Ponder, a Jace, a Swords and a Force is probably a fine control hand (i.e. they are fine with playing lands for the first 4-6 turns).

Aggro only needs Brainstorm more because they made the best aggro creature blue. The articles author puts much of the blame (for various formats) on Delver. I think an 18 land (14 color producing) deck without 4 x Brainstorm would have a tough time getting through 8-10 rounds without getting what it deserves for such a nutty mana base.

[nedleeds]

Nedleeds please take your whining to the appropriate thread.

It's uncool to hijack someone's thread to beat a dead horse.

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation./page191

The article is about what legacy needs. Thanks for your insightful and fact filled response.

[Snap_Keep]

@Shawon/Hardcore/IBA: Let's not turn this into another Brainstorm discussion.

The author specifically asked for people to not derail his thread...

This particular topic has been beat to death. There is no point in discussing it further.

You aren't changing anyone's mind. I'm surprised your posts haven't been moderated.

[nedleeds]

Lack of color diversity != Lack of deck diversity.

You might have a point if the top decks overwhelmingly only consisted of the same 2-3 decks, which isn't the case.

Format diversity in my estimation would be not having 80% of the top 8's at every major event having a play set of a non-land card. Most other cards that met that criteria were banned (see SotF, see Mental Misstep, see Gush)

[DragoFireheart]

Format diversity in my estimation

- There's half of your problem. Stop assuming your estimation is fact.

[nedleeds]

The author specifically asked for people to not derail his thread...

This particular topic has been beat to death. There is no point in discussing it further.

You aren't changing anyone's mind. I'm surprised your posts haven't been moderated.



That being said, just because a lot of people will call for unnecessary bans and complain about pointless stuff, that doesn't mean those that think differently should shut up


I'm pointing out how Brainstorm limits design space (see Targeted Discard as a format helper, or Miracles). I'm also advocating unbanning(s) before more bannings. But keep following me around and not actually reading or comprehending what I'm posting.

[nedleeds]

- There's half of your problem. Stop assuming your estimation is fact.

Reading. Is. Fundamental.

That's why I didn't say something like ... "Format diversity is defined as follows" this is a giant thread of opinions, started by an article which is an opinion piece on what legacy needs. WTF don't you understand?

[DragoFireheart]

WTF don't you understand?

Why you blatantly disregarded Zilla when he was completely right. There is such a thing as wrong opinions.

What you are complaining about is that some cards are very good staples that prevent other cards from being good. Yeah, my Tarmogoyf is going to overshadow someones Werebear, but that doesn't make the Tarmogoyf a ban worthy card.

[nedleeds]

Why you blatantly disregarded Zilla when he was completely right. There is such a thing as wrong opinions.

What you are complaining about is that some cards are very good staples that prevent other cards from being good. Yeah, my Tarmogoyf is going to overshadow someones Werebear, but that doesn't make the Tarmogoyf a ban worthy card.

You clearly don't want to read. You just bark one sentence responses with no content.


I've yet to see a single good argument beyond "It's too good!"

You don't even acknowledge that I advocate unbannings before bannings. You just see brainstorm somewhere in a post and you and/or your roommate snap_keep just blurt a brief pointless reply of something along the lines of, "you're a whiner", "you suck at magic", "pillar of the format", "skill intensive", "go play modern".

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/search.php?searchid=709621&pp=100

SnapKeep has 70 posts. All 8-10 word semi hostile replies with little or no content, usually involving white knighting brainstorm.

So I think it's time we just go on each others ignore lists. I am pointing out THE staple that crosses all archtypes of the format. Giving players a reason to not play it is "WHAT LEGACY NEEDS" in my opinion. Right now players largely (80% according to results) don't have a reason not to play it.

Tarmogoyf versus Werebear has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Tarmogoyf isn't played in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and the best control deck.

[Shion]

Format diversity in my estimation would be not having 80% of the top 8's at every major event having a play set of a non-land card. Most other cards that met that criteria were banned (see SotF, see Mental Misstep, see Gush)
There is deck diversity in legacy, more so than in any other format. Decks in Legacy aren't defined by what's in them, they are defined by what they do. There are no "Brainstorm Decks" in this format. There are only decks that include brainstorm. You just fundamentally disagree with the common perception that others view the format with.

No one cares that Brainstorm is around because it doesn't define strategies.
Brainstorm is
a) a fun card
b) a skillful card
c) a card that doesn't win by itself
d) a card that makes your other cards better

It is not the reason that Canadian Thresh or UW Miracles, UW/b Stoneblade or any combo decks are good decks.

History clearly shows this, since brainstorm has been legal since the beginning of the Legacy format, all we need to do is look back in time.

Landstill played 4 Brainstorms, but that didn't stop it from being pushed out of the format.

Threshold wasn't able to consistently beat Goblins before Tarmogoyf was printed, regardless of having brainstorm.

Early combo didn't run over the format because they had access to Brainstorm, and they are not doing it now.

Stoneblade wasn't a deck without stoneforge, Jace and batterskull, so clearly Brainstorm isn't an "enabler" here either.

UW Control likewise hasn't been good in quite some time, until Miracles were printed. Sure Brainstorm interacts with Miracles, but so does Top and Jace, and just ripping them off the top. Again this deck exists not because of brainstorm, but because of other cards.

Similarly, so called "Brainstorm Decks" weren't enough to stop Zoo when it was big, nor Merfolk (the curious non-brainstorm blue deck).

I would say that my honest evaluation is that the format is diverse not in spite of Brainstorm, but because of Brainstorm.

Brainstorm is just one tool in blue's arsenal, that while good, doesn't define the decks in this format, other cards do that, Brainstorm fills only a support role because it's the best support card, it's not as if ponder doesn't see heavy play as well.

With that said, I think we would all appreciate it if you'd direct your rhetoric to the correct thread and cease derailing this topic.

And to address the topic, I agree completely with the article, Griselbrand and Delver are some of the biggest mistakes that wizards have ever printed. However, Legacy has adapted, and this format's ability to adapt never ceases to amaze me.

[DragoFireheart]

You clearly don't want to read. You just bark one sentence responses with no content.

- Oh the irony.




You don't even acknowledge that I advocate unbannings before bannings.

- Because that point isn't relevant in regard to me talking about your opinions on Brainstorm.



You just see brainstorm somewhere in a post and you and/or your roommate snap_keep just blurt a brief pointless reply of something along the lines of, "you're a whiner", "you suck at magic", "pillar of the format", "skill intensive", "go play modern".

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/search.php?searchid=709621&pp=100

SnapKeep has 70 posts. All 8-10 word semi hostile replies with little or no content, usually involving white knighting brainstorm.

- What the hell are you talking about?




So I think it's time we just go on each others ignore lists. I am pointing out THE staple that crosses all archtypes of the format. Giving players a reason to not play it is "WHAT LEGACY NEEDS" in my opinion. Right now players largely (80% according to results) don't have a reason not to play it.

- Yes, it's a good staple. People like to play good cards. Competitive players will gravitate towards the good cards. That's not necessarily bad at all. It's only bad when the result is less variety in decks. That's not the case.

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/metagame.php?format=Legacy&fecha=2012-7

Goblins, Merfolk, and Maverick are three viable non-brainstorm decks.

Among the "brainstorm" decks, each deck that uses it is significantly different from the next. So deck variety is not an issue.

Again, stop pretending that a widely used card means that the meta is unhealthy.




Tarmogoyf versus Werebear has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Tarmogoyf isn't played in the best combo deck, the best aggro deck and the best control deck.

- You're assuming that Brainstorm being a widely used staple makes it bad for the format. Please stop making that basic assumption for your arguments. I might give longer posts if you do so.

[ajfennewald]

I would just like to echo the paying the same cards not making decks the same thoughts. I play a blue zoo deck that shares about 40 cards with the average RUG delver deck. It actually plays significantly differently in spite of that.

[nedleeds]

There is deck diversity in legacy, more so than in any other format. Decks in Legacy aren't defined by what's in them, they are defined by what they do. There are no "Brainstorm Decks" in this format. There are only decks that include brainstorm. You just fundamentally disagree with the common perception that others view the format with.


So you don't feel Legacy needs anything. You are fine with how it is and you present your opinions clearly (below). I respect that and at least you gave me something interesting to read.



No one cares that Brainstorm is around because it doesn't define strategies.


I think no one is inaccurate, there are plenty of players who care one way or another that Brainstorm is around. There are people who feel it should be banned, others who claim they would quit if it were banned.

It enables almost all strategies (tribal and non-Magic decks like dredge or belcher excluded) which is something hardly any other colored card can boast.



Brainstorm is
a) a fun card
b) a skillful card
c) a card that doesn't win by itself
d) a card that makes your other cards better


Gush is
a) a fun card
b) a skillful card
c) a card that doesn't win by itself
d) a card that makes your other cards better

You like brainstorm and then you roll out 3 other attributes of the card that many banned cards share. Why is brainstorm exempt? If anything I have to commit less deck building space to brainstorm than I do for something like Gush. Brainstorm is so easy to fit into anything not tribal playing island and not planning to cast chalice on 1.



It is not the reason that Canadian Thresh or UW Miracles, UW/b Stoneblade or any combo decks are good decks.


It's a large part of why they can keep bad hands and still win. Which something like b/w or g/r can never do. Canadian Thresh can play a mathematically absurd mana base with 6-8 actual colored lands.

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/deck.php?id=8882&iddeck=64894

Again opinions, but I feel like a deck like this is only navigating ~10 rounds on the back of brainstorm. Brainstorm is so format warping you can play 6 lands that make colored mana. Again fetchlands exacerbate this ... but I'm of the opinion that dual lands and fetchlands are a good thing for legacy.

Why would you ever play without it unless you were just a pile of men from the same tribe, or planning on sticking a chalice on 1 at the soonest possible moment.



History clearly shows this,
<list of decks that have used brainstorm>


Not sure why the brief tour of legacies history matters. The card pool has shifted so much I'm not certain it matters. The decline of zoo is mostly due to Delver being a better creature then anything G/R/W can muster at 1 mana. Mistep and SFM/Batterskull hurt it also, and it fell out of favor.



Brainstorm is the tool in blue's arsenal, that while good, doesn't define the decks in this format, other cards do that,


Emphasis mine.

What cards do then? What card defines a deck that can run 6 mana producing lands and win a ten round tourney? What card allows a deck full of terrible redundant combo pieces to navigate a tourney?



Brainstorm fills only a support role because it's the best support card, it's not as if ponder doesn't see heavy play as well.


It's the best card in the format and it's choking decks down to 56 cards. Ponder would absolutely still be played if brainstorm were to go the way of Gush, and still be a fantastic card. It still wouldn't be brainstorm.



And to address the topic, I agree completely with the article, Griselbrand and Delver are some of the biggest mistakes that wizards have ever printed. However, Legacy has adapted, and this format's ability to adapt never ceases to amaze me.


Sure, I don't hate the format. I also agree with much of the article, Delver is a huge mistake - I don't play standard so I'm not sure how he operates there (or will operate when the cantrips rotate). Griselbrand is certainly strong but unless something drastic happens at R&D I don't see them pumping out absurd EDH/Timmy fatties anytime soon. Oh and by the way ... every deck that plays Delver and Griselbrand also plays 4 ... nevermind.

[Nihil Credo]

A reminder that we have a ban thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation.&p=665163#post665163) for going in circles about whether Card X deserves the axe or not. Keep this thread about Carsten's article, which is about new set designs.

[(nameless one)]

Would Natural Selection ever see play? I wish that card wasn't reserved.

[wcm8]

Would Natural Selection ever see play? I wish that card wasn't reserved.

If it also drew a card, yes. A green Ponder/Portent could see play.

[DragoFireheart]

Would Natural Selection ever see play? I wish that card wasn't reserved.

No, since it doesn't draw anything.

[Aggro_zombies]

Would Natural Selection ever see play? I wish that card wasn't reserved.
In addition to what others have said about it not drawing anything, you'd rather have Top in the decks that could run this because then you get to Select whenever you want. Actually, Sylvan Library functions in much the same way and already sees play as a 1- to 2-of in some decks.

As for library manipulation in other colors: we've already seen what red and black get, and one of white's things is not getting it (because of the color pie). I could see green getting something like:

Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?
G
Sorcery
Choose a creature you control. Look at the top X cards of your library, where X is that creature's power, and put them back in any order. You may shuffle your library.

Draw a card.

Or something for black that's not as behind the curve as Night's Whisper or Sign in Blood:

Ouchies Ponder
B
Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. For each card, you may pay two life. If you do, put it into your hand; if you don't, exile it.

The fact that blue's cantrips are both one mana and fairly unconditional to use is what sets them far ahead of the current manipulation options in other colors. It's worth noting that the non-blue library manipulation that does see play is either a form of tutor (GSZ) or provides recurring card advantage (Sylvan Library, Dark Confidant), which is not really comparable to the stuff blue's rocking.

[Shion]

@nedleeds
Responded in in the banned list speculation thread
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation.&p=665196&viewfull=1#post665196

On topic, I don't think giving Library filtering to every color is necessarily the best way to go about it. GSZ is the kind of design that other colors need, something that increases consistency but is still in color.

I think they really need to push looting for Red.

[Aggro_zombies]

@needleds
Responded in in the banned list speculation thread
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?14662-All-B-R-update-speculation.&p=665196&viewfull=1#post665196

On topic, I don't think giving Library filtering to every color is necessarily the best way to go about it. GSZ is the kind of design that other colors need, something that increases consistency but is still in color.

I think they really need to push looting for Red.
How do they go about that, though? You can't print another GSZ.

I mean, clearly green wants something to do with creatures, red is reverse looting (discard, then draw), and black is life-for-cards. White doesn't get anything and probably shouldn't since it's rather out of flavor.

The problem with blue's filtering, cards like GSZ, and cards like Library/Confidant is that they all do different things and are thus good at solving different problems. The fact that blue's filtering is the most prevalent by far is due in part to its inherent flexibility and usefulness: it provides an immediate advantage (>Bob/Library) for very little mana (>GSZ). It's worth noting that Maverick is pretty much the only successful GSZ deck right now, whereas Brainstorm, Ponder & Co. enable a lot of different decks.

[rxavage]

Giving players a reason to not play it(Brainstorm) is "WHAT LEGACY NEEDS" in my opinion.


I agree with Nedleeds on this. WotC should bolster other colours to strengthen non-brainstorm-type stategies and arcetypes to give players an incentive not to play the "best" colour. I don't want anything banned and would rather see unbannings as well. I play mostly "blue" decks but that doesn't mean I don't want other strategies/archetypes to flourish and be competitive. I think the article did a good job describing the needs of Legacy as well as what isn't needed, my only concern is the target will be missed.

[DragoFireheart]

How do they go about that, though? You can't print another GSZ.

I mean, clearly green wants something to do with creatures, red is reverse looting (discard, then draw), and black is life-for-cards. White doesn't get anything and probably shouldn't since it's rather out of flavor.

The problem with blue's filtering, cards like GSZ, and cards like Library/Confidant is that they all do different things and are thus good at solving different problems. The fact that blue's filtering is the most prevalent by far is due in part to its inherent flexibility and usefulness: it provides an immediate advantage (>Bob/Library) for very little mana (>GSZ). It's worth noting that Maverick is pretty much the only successful GSZ deck right now, whereas Brainstorm, Ponder & Co. enable a lot of different decks.

-Fundamentally and color mechanics wise, blue is the most powerful color due to removing luck to a certain degree from the game. Also, card drawing/cantripping is another powerful mechanic in magic that blue exclusively has reign over. Counterspells act like a catch-all answer and doesn't require you to have narrow answers to cards. Of course, this is balanced by blue having bad crea...

Umm...

Well, it doesn't have easy ways to cheat out big monsters like green does...

err...

Well, At least it's cards are hard to spla...

Derp...

I give up.

[Shion]

How do they go about that, though? You can't print another GSZ.

I mean, clearly green wants something to do with creatures, red is reverse looting (discard, then draw), and black is life-for-cards. White doesn't get anything and probably shouldn't since it's rather out of flavor.

The problem with blue's filtering, cards like GSZ, and cards like Library/Confidant is that they all do different things and are thus good at solving different problems. The fact that blue's filtering is the most prevalent by far is due in part to its inherent flexibility and usefulness: it provides an immediate advantage (>Bob/Library) for very little mana (>GSZ). It's worth noting that Maverick is pretty much the only successful GSZ deck right now, whereas Brainstorm, Ponder & Co. enable a lot of different decks.

Your right, and I think wizards has learned this after making ponder. I would however say that I think Black's banned tutors are stronger than blue's cantrips. The trick is making a black tutor that's has both a low enough cost and can't be used by combo.

The real problem there is that I cannot think of a tutor that wouldn't be better in combo than it would in non-combo decks.

I think if they made reverse looting good enough then it could possibly see play in a variety of different types of red decks. Thought red as a whole needs more than just card manipulation/card advantage. It needs something to make it relevant outside burn/creature strategies, not as a mono-colored deck, but as a core color in multi-colored strategies, instead of constantly being a splash color.

Also, I'd like to say that while GSZ doesn't form the backbone of other decks, it has made other decks better by increasing consistency. Both Enchantress and Nic Fit have used it.

[dragonwisdom]

"-Fundamentally and color mechanics wise, blue is the most powerful color due to removing luck to a certain degree from the game. Also, card drawing/cantripping is another powerful mechanic in magic that blue exclusively has reign over. Counterspells act like a catch-all answer and doesn't require you to have narrow answers to cards. Of course, this is balanced by blue having bad crea...

Umm...

Well, it doesn't have easy ways to cheat out big monsters like green does...

err...

Well, At least it's cards are hard to spla...

Derp...

I give up. "

alright that was funny

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

I think giving other colors relatively straight up card selection is pretty much a necessity if you want to expand archetype and card diversity in Legacy. As long as Blue has a relative monopoly on this, a lot of decks will tend to be built with Blue bases and a similar Blue package run in all these. We accept that certain mechanics, certain abilities are so vital that every color needs access to them. Just look at creature removal, Storm hate, fetch/dual manabases, and non-basic hate (Wasteland). It's time for more card selection mechanics to be given to other colors. Green can get Sylvan Library/Mirri's Guile effects and dig spells for creatures and land (see Lead the Stampede/Ancient Stirrings), Black can trade life or creatures for card selection, White will probably have to rely on Scry, Cycling, and specific tutor effects, and Red...well I'd like to see Red get this beaut'

Brain Lightning
R
Instant

Flip a coin. If you win, draw four cards and put three cards from your hand on top of your library in any order. If you lose draw two cards and put one card from your hand on top of your library.

The EV is Brainstorm, but there's a bit more randomness, making it a little worse, and more in flavor for Red.

****

The other thing that needs to be bled out of just Blue is the ability to interact with the stack. Other colors need timely answers with a wide(r) use to negate some of the threats that Legacy decks present. Deck and card diversity suffer greatly because there is nothing like Force of Will in any other color. No card can provide such protection against a wide variety of decks/archetypes that want to win via non-interactive means. Other colors have to resort to narrow answers (Mindbreak Trap, Grafdigger's Cage, Leyline of Sanctity), or answers that may come too slowly (hate bears, hate enchantments). And with the ever growing mass of combo decks (Storm, Show&Tell, Reanimator) and archetypes like Stax/Stompy/Pox that can just lock you out of the game before you have a chance to drop lands...it seems almost foolish to go to any tournament without a deck packing Force/Brainstorm Yeah, sure, other decks win all the time. And sure, sometimes Top 8's are devoid of Forces or Brainstorms. But that doesn't change the fact that a Blue core gives you a better chance to win if matches/metagaming don't go your way.

I don't have a great suggestion for this problem. My best guess is bleeding countermagic into Red, but only the sort that deals with Instants/Sorceries, to reflect how Red is the other "spell color" and add much needed mechanical/archetypal depth to a color that sorely needs it. Negate could be colorshifted to Red easily, as could things like Misdirection. A Red "Force" could even be printed, which I've been stumping in favor of for a long time.

Aw Hell No!
2RR
Instant

You may remove a Red card in your hand rather than paying [CARDNAME]'s mana cost.

Counter target instant or sorcery spell.

****

Finally, to parrot what a lot of others have said, stop patching up any weakness of Blue either by printing great Blue cards or great "Blue" cards. Make things that aren't easy to splash, or that conflict with Blue cards/a Blue shell; cards that demand commitment in the way Force demands Blue commitment.

I think Legacy would be a lot more fun if the process of brewing didn't tend to lead towards the same (Blue) cards. That if you wanted to make a tempo deck, it would be a choice between a hypothetical B/R tempo build and the traditional U/G/x types, not just go Blue or go home.

[mini1337s]

The Hero that Red Deserves
1R
Creature - Human Barbarian
Double-strike
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you win, draw 2 cards and discard 2 cards. If you lose, "the Hero that Red Deserves" loses Double-Strike until end of turn.
2/1

eh? ehhhh? Is Red good yet? Or does 4 color become next level?

I'm going to go back to my hole now.

[Tormod]

It's worth noting that Maverick is pretty much the only successful GSZ deck right now, whereas Brainstorm, Ponder & Co. enable a lot of different decks.

Elves runs 4 GSZ. So besides the more popular Maverick and the less popular Elves.

I agree. Legacy needs more filtering, digging for Red. Seeing the miss on making Snap blue instead of Red, I would like to see a creature 1(R) Wizard 2/1 Flash, Copy a spell, and you choose new targets for that spell. Fork on a Stick.

[Koby]

why 1 toughness? Make it 4 toughness, and now we're talking.

[dragonwisdom]

Some of these proposals are not good for magic. The color pie must be kept firmly intact.
The reason we are complaining is that Wizards has destroyed the color pie.
Both Delver and Snapcaster should have been red.
They gave blue the best
one drop creature -delver (used to be natcatyl)
two-drop - snapcaster (used to dark confidant or goyf)
mono-color three drop - V-clique

Best planeswalker - Jace
best tutor - intuition
best cheater - show and tell
best legacy card- brainstorm
the only thing that is missing is the best removal spell which still belongs to white - STP

what they need to do is catch the other colors up. Blue (counters) and Black (discard) offer the best disruption to combo. White at least has hate bears and underplayed chant effects. They need to give green and red some way to fight combo. red can interact with the stack with red blast, pyro blast, fork etc... Thus a red force of will would fit nicely. It would also help modern have a good combo hoser as well.

But wizards should not bleed too many abilities into the other colors. Look what delver and snapcaster have done to the color pie.

see the other colors basically got screwed.

[dragonwisdom]

They also need to support more combo black and red spells that reward you for playing badlands.

They are friend colors that seem like a natural fit yet their best cards are terminate and blightning.


goblin goul

cost: black and red

creature: 2/2 undying

when goblin goul comes into play put a 1/1 red goblin creature into the battlefield.
when goblin goul leaves play put a 1/1 black zombie into play

how is that for powercreap

[(nameless one)]

Is it just me or people just seem to forget that Sensei's Divining Top exist. Doesn't that card help against variance?

If paired with Dark Confidant or Dark Tutalage, it becomes a card advantage engine with minimal damage.

Also, I hope Land Tax and Scroll Rack does get better as a strategy. I still think its Tier 2 but there just needs to be a way to build around it. I mean it did take two full years for Metalworker and Grim Monolith to have an established archetype. Dream Halls also did as well.

[Kich867]

The Hero that Red Deserves
1R
Creature - Human Barbarian
Double-strike
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you win, draw 2 cards and discard 2 cards. If you lose, "the Hero that Red Deserves" loses Double-Strike until end of turn.
2/1

eh? ehhhh? Is Red good yet? Or does 4 color become next level?

I'm going to go back to my hole now.

I had actually thought it'd be interesting for a Red wizard to be printed as such:

1R
Flash
When <name> enters the battlefield, you may copy target instant or sorcery spell and play it without paying it's mana cost. You may choose new targets for this copy.
2/1

But I suppose that's a different thread all together.

[Phoenix Ignition]

The problem with a lot of the current suggestions is that blue decks can just splash them in with their current BS, Daze, FoW etc. package. Creature that's double strike or draws cards? Throw it in a deck with Delver. Brainstorm-esque red card? Throw it in a Delver deck.

Call me crazy, but the only ways to make these non-splashable is to either make them double mana requirements (if you splash a :r::r: card in a blue deck then you deserve to run it since you're making a largeish manabase sacrifice for it) is to make it simply not playable by them.

How about:
Red Creature ~: :1::r:
3/2
At the begining of your upkeep ~ deals you damage equal to the number of cards in your hand minus 3. Whenever ~ deals combat damage draw a card.

or

Red Instant : :r:
Draw two cards, then discard 2 cards. Any Instants or Sorceries discarded have madness cost equal to its mana cost. You may not play this spell if you control any Islands.

A whole set would have to be done with cards like that, not letting certain colors play them to make it "fair."

But honestly, I think there need to be more cards that reward going mono or 2 color. Everyone has access to sweet manabases, so making things cost something like :1::g::w: is actually easier on the player than making it straight up cost :1::g::g:, yet the 2 color creatures are almost always better (obviously not the 1-drops).

I would love to see a super-powerful creature that has "Sacrifice this creature if you control any non-basic lands."

[Lord Seth]

I had actually thought it'd be interesting for a Red wizard to be printed as such:

1R
Flash
When <name> enters the battlefield, you may copy target instant or sorcery spell and play it without paying it's mana cost. You may choose new targets for this copy.
2/1

But I suppose that's a different thread all together.I'm highly dubious about this card. Even if you consider Reverberate to be overcosted, you're still taking an already-existing card considered to be fair, making it cost less, and then adding a 2/1 creature on top of that. It all seems a bit much.

[Final Fortune]

The problem with a lot of the current suggestions is that blue decks can just splash them in with their current BS, Daze, FoW etc. package. Creature that's double strike or draws cards? Throw it in a deck with Delver. Brainstorm-esque red card? Throw it in a Delver deck.

Call me crazy, but the only ways to make these non-splashable is to either make them double mana requirements (if you splash a :r::r: card in a blue deck then you deserve to run it since you're making a largeish manabase sacrifice for it) is to make it simply not playable by them.

How about:
Red Creature ~: :1::r:
3/2
At the begining of your upkeep ~ deals you damage equal to the number of cards in your hand minus 3. Whenever ~ deals combat damage draw a card.

or

Red Instant : :r:
Draw two cards, then discard 2 cards. Any Instants or Sorceries discarded have madness cost equal to its mana cost. You may not play this spell if you control any Islands.

A whole set would have to be done with cards like that, not letting certain colors play them to make it "fair."

But honestly, I think there need to be more cards that reward going mono or 2 color. Everyone has access to sweet manabases, so making things cost something like :1::g::w: is actually easier on the player than making it straight up cost :1::g::g:, yet the 2 color creatures are almost always better (obviously not the 1-drops).

I would love to see a super-powerful creature that has "Sacrifice this creature if you control any non-basic lands."

Cards that penalize you for holding blue cards in your hand or for having Islands on your board is horrible card design, I think if you want to make relevant red and black creatures for Legacy then you have to design around RR, BB and Protection from White, Green (i.e. Swords to Plowshares and Tarmogoyf).

For instance,

Chaos Knight, RR

Double Strike, Protection from White

2/2

or

Death Knight, BB

Death Strike, Protection from Green

2/2

or

Hellspawn, 1BB

Protection from White and Green

3/4

Diamondback Dragon, 1RR

Flying, Protection from White

R: Diamondback Dragon gains +1/0 until end of turn

3/4

"Chaos Goyf" 1RR

Haste

Any time a spell or ability targets "Chaos Goyf" flip a coin, if the coin lands on heads the spell or ability is countered.

"Chaos Goyf" has +1/1 for every instant and sorcery in all discard piles.

0*/1*

I really like the idea of creatures that become more effective based on the use of instants and sorceries because it punishes blue for being an instant and sorcery heavy color and takes advantage of cantrips specifically.

I also like the idea of giving red a lot of effects in other color as long as the effects are tied to an element of randomness, a coin flip shround ala Frenetic Efreet really leaves the opponent to a difficult choice of whether or not he should invest the Swords to Plowshares and risk a 0 return.

I also like the idea of,

"Red Brainstorm," R

Draw 3 cards, discard 2 cards at random.

"Red Counter Spell," RR

Flip a coin, if the coin lands heads target counter spell, if the coin lands tails choose a new target for target spell.

[lordofthepit]

Poor Carsten's thread got hijacked into the latest edition of obligatory shitty card creation.

[sdematt]

Carsten,

You write good articles bringing the good parts of the discussion here on the Source to the rest of the world that only reads SCG. I approve. Well done, once again.

-Matt

[xfxf]

Elves runs 4 GSZ. So besides the more popular Maverick and the less popular Elves.

I agree. Legacy needs more filtering, digging for Red. Seeing the miss on making Snap blue instead of Red, I would like to see a creature 1(R) Wizard 2/1 Flash, Copy a spell, and you choose new targets for that spell. Fork on a Stick.

If it's 1R blue will splash for it. Any card you're designing for balance purposes should be CC at least imo.

[Final Fortune]

Poor Carsten's thread got hijacked into the latest edition of obligatory shitty card creation.

That's useful, seriously, my point was if you're going to complain about color balance and power creep in legacy leaving red and black behind as colors then you need to find the design elements that actually address the issue instead of bitching. If you have any better suggestions I'm all ears, I just don't see any point in bringing attention to an issue we're all already aware of unless you're going to put something forward to correct the problem.

So what is red and black missing in legacy that you could print in standard and address the issue for legacy without imbalancing standard?

[xfxf]

By looking at the responses in the thread it seems that what Legacy and Legacy players most need is good reasons to play non blue colors more. Despite being a blue player and an avid defender of Brainstorm I can agree with this. If you take a look at the most consistent DTBs since the banning of Mental Misstep you have these decks:

Maverick
UWx Stoneblade
RUG
Dredge
Sneak&Show
Reanimator
BUG variants
ANT

There's only Dredge and Maverick being non blue. If I leave Dredge out since it is its own unique thing the only non-blue deck which is consistently good in Legacy is Maverick. In that regard I agree with the need for more diversity in the format. All the black decks, red decks are Tier 2 and lower. If I have the cards or the means to acquire the cards why would I stick to any other deck other than these usual suspects from a competitive point of view? Yes there have been other DTBs in the past 12 months like Nic Fit, Goblins, Merfolks etc. but their success is meta dependent whereas decks with blue cores are always there, adapting and evolving.

It would be exciting to see a, say black control deck or red combo/aggro deck like Painter, establish itself in the upper Tiers just like Maverick over time and become a staple strategy in the format.

[Lemnear]

By looking at the responses in the thread it seems that what Legacy and Legacy players most need is good reasons to play non blue colors more. Despite being a blue player and an avid defender of Brainstorm I can agree with this. If you take a look at the most consistent DTBs since the banning of Mental Misstep you have these decks:

Maverick
UWx Stoneblade
RUG
Dredge
Sneak&Show
Reanimator
BUG variants
ANT

There's only Dredge and Maverick being non blue. If I leave Dredge out since it is its own unique thing the only non-blue deck which is consistently good in Legacy is Maverick. In that regard I agree with the need for more diversity in the format. All the black decks, red decks are Tier 2 and lower. If I have the cards or the means to acquire the cards why would I stick to any other deck other than these usual suspects from a competitive point of view? Yes there have been other DTBs in the past 12 months like Nic Fit, Goblins, Merfolks etc. but their success is meta dependent whereas decks with blue cores are always there, adapting and evolving.

It would be exciting to see a, say black control deck or red combo/aggro deck like Painter, establish itself in the upper Tiers just like Maverick over time and become a staple strategy in the format.

As long as WotC considers Black the Color of discard, creature removal and overcosted drawback demons i doubt it's going to be more than a Splash-Color. The last remarkable Black creatures were tombstalker, griselbrand and confidant.

WotC stripped Black from rituals, tutors and the "Life for Profit"-philosophy for years and every time they use those concepts again something strong appears (Bob, griz, infernal Tutor, ad nauseam).

Don't see WotC trying to Explore the Edge between overcosted crap and awesome in black

[Aggro_zombies]

That's useful, seriously, my point was if you're going to complain about color balance and power creep in legacy leaving red and black behind as colors then you need to find the design elements that actually address the issue instead of bitching. If you have any better suggestions I'm all ears, I just don't see any point in bringing attention to an issue we're all already aware of unless you're going to put something forward to correct the problem.

So what is red and black missing in legacy that you could print in standard and address the issue for legacy without imbalancing standard?
See, the problem is, it's easy to say, "We need in-color counterparts to things like Brainstorm for non-blue colors," but it's very difficult to implement them in practice. On the one hand, your solutions need to be comparable in power to Brainstorm in power, or else it's better to just run blue for Brainstorm; on the other hand, they can't be too good in blue decks, or they'll suffer from the Mental Misstep problem. GSZ is certainly a start, but it's a dead end since you don't want to have your environment be rife with tutoring. Furthermore, GSZ is not really comparable at all to Brainstorm/Ponder in terms of function: GSZ is a build-around card while Brainstorm and Ponder are cheap, one-shot smoothing effects, something basically no other color has.

Red is the closest with Faithless Looting, but the template for that is currently discard then draw, which is so much worse than the blue options as to be nigh unplayable in decks that aren't some sort of combo variant. Black's cantrips have all cost two or more mana in addition to life, and are thus unplayable, but it's pretty clear to me that the specter of Necropotence haunts the color and WotC is afraid to push the envelope too far there lest it come back to life. However, without good, cheap filtering, the other colors are pretty doomed to marginalization. That means you pretty much have to break color pie to give it to them, which is ultimately bad for the game.

Also, some of the suggestions people have been floating in this thread have already been shot down by MaRo on his tumblr - red counterspells, for example.

[nedleeds]

By looking at the responses in the thread it seems that what Legacy and Legacy players most need is good reasons to play non blue colors more.

It would be exciting to see a, say black control deck or red combo/aggro deck like Painter, establish itself in the upper Tiers just like Maverick over time and become a staple strategy in the format.

Why play Painter without Brainstorm? It's a 2 card combo deck and Brainstorm is (given that Demonic Tutor / Consultation are banned) the best salve for any 2 card combo. Shuffle back redundant pieces and extra lands.

Cards that punish the cantrips might do it, but if they aren't carefully designed they'll just end up being used in the same decks.

Priest of Mephistopheles - Human Cleric - B

If an opponent has drawn more than one card this turn you may play Priest of Mephistopheles as though it had flash.

When Priest of Mephistopheles enters the battlefield target opponent discards a number of cards equal to the number of cards he has drawn this turn.

1/1

So as a dry 1/1 played during your main phase, he doesn't have much applicability. He can't be Spell Pierced.

You say this guy is a good anti-ponder / brainstorm cards, but he'll just end up in a blue deck.

[xfxf]

Imperial Painter utilizes Moon effects, that's why splashing blue might not be the best idea in that particular deck but that's not the point, I wasn't talking about the current Painter deck rising up to Tier 1 anyways. It was just a hypotethical example.

[Ignithas_]

Why play Painter without Brainstorm? It's a 2 card combo deck and Brainstorm is (given that Demonic Tutor / Consultation are banned) the best salve for any 2 card combo. Shuffle back redundant pieces and extra lands.

Cards that punish the cantrips might do it, but if they aren't carefully designed they'll just end up being used in the same decks.

Priest of Mephistopheles - Human Cleric - B

If an opponent has drawn more than one card this turn you may play Priest of Mephistopheles as though it had flash.

When Priest of Mephistopheles enters the battlefield target opponent discards a number of cards equal to the number of cards he has drawn this turn.

1/1

So as a dry 1/1 played during your main phase, he doesn't have much applicability. He can't be Spell Pierced.

You say this guy is a good anti-ponder / brainstorm cards, but he'll just end up in a blue deck.
You could use the phrase "The controler of xy can't play U sorceries or instant spells".

[Mr Miagi]

@ Mon,Goblin Chief: I think the last 4 pages of this thread is why Wizards shouldn't take notes from the MtG players :laugh:

[Ignithas_]

@ Mon,Goblin Chief: I think the last 4 pages of this thread is why Wizards shouldn't take notes from the MtG players :laugh:
I think the last post of this thread is why some people believe that magic player are nerds that don't get women:laugh:

[Darkenslight]

I suspect that what Red needed was for the Instant/Sorcery shenanigans of the past ten years to have been fully in Red. So, no Twincast, no Delver of Secrets and no Snapcaster Mage in Blue. Red should have mastery over spells, rather than Blue, which gets to counter anything. So Red gets all the Fork-type spells, gets cards similar to Envelop, and gets more cards like Kiln Fiend.

White should get the "imposition of law" cards, with Black as a secondary, for different reasons: White gets them as the Justice color, and Black gets them as "imposition of power" effects.

Green should be predominantly the color of mana-ramp and Undercosted fatties, and have absolute control over creatures. So, in my opinion, it should have cards that counter creature spells, cards that can destroy other creatures (the flavor being that Green is putting the thing down, rather than the callous murder of Black and the defensive nature of White's removal currently). IT should also have the "Best" creatures. Like, for example, Thrun, the Last Troll and Troll Ascetic.

Blue should ideally stick to being the color with the best control elements but not the best of everything. So it should be the mastery of general permission and bounce, and have generally "weak" creatures excepting the tribal synergies of, for example, Merfolk.

Black should become the color of "it can get everything....at a cost". Whether that cost is in permanents, life or cards is determined by the surrounding environment. IT should have access to a Channel-like effect. Cards like Reprocess fit in with this flavour, as do cards like Diabolic Intent.

IT's an interesting long-term design plan, to be sure. But there should be rare times when this bleeds over: for example, Gelectrode would be a good example of a reprint under this design policy.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

That means you pretty much have to break color pie to give it to them, which is ultimately bad for the game.

Cycling, Scry, Urza's/Mishra's Baubles, and Top. Look at things like Mirri's Guile or Sylvan Library...the precedent and design for card selection exists, all that needs to occur is some good development of cards that use these mechanics to give other colors more ability to combat variance. It might not be as good as Blue's, but at least some playables could give rise to new brews that don't go Blue.

Plus, the color pie is already broken in Legacy. Blue does everything. Aggressive critters, card draw, countermagic, cheat-into-play-effects, hand disruption, tribal aggro, and more. And thanks to fetch/dual manabases and a huge catalogue of cards from the ages, it can easily splash to shore up anything it's only "okay" at.


Also, some of the suggestions people have been floating in this thread have already been shot down by MaRo on his tumblr - red counterspells, for example.

So? This discussion is already in magical fantasy land because Wizards doesn't give two shits about Legacy and would never implement any ideas, no matter how good, because there is little incentive for them to push Legacy as a format. This is all hypothetical.

[Jenni]

Cycling, Scry, Urza's/Mishra's Baubles, and Top. Look at things like Mirri's Guile or Sylvan Library...the precedent and design for card selection exists, all that needs to occur is some good development of cards that use these mechanics to give other colors more ability to combat variance. It might not be as good as Blue's, but at least some playables could give rise to new brews that don't go Blue.
Plus, the color pie is already broken in Legacy. Blue does everything. Aggressive critters, card draw, countermagic, cheat-into-play-effects, hand disruption, tribal aggro, and more. And thanks to fetch/dual manabases and a huge catalogue of cards from the ages, it can easily splash to shore up anything it's only "okay" at. .

The problem with using all those other mechanics and ideas to help other colours, though, is that blue gets all these things too... brainstorm, fetches, and duals, basically means blue can splash for whatever it wants, unless they cost it at, like double-colour or something (which, alone, makes it rough compared to blue's cheap cantrips and filtering). They would definitely help, a lot, but blue still wins in the end.

I love legacy, but I do not play it for the colour balance.
I think, at this point, there is no way for the other colours to catch up to blue, other than a mass of bannings, which would be worse for the format than just letting blue reign. Over the years, blue has found it's way into every facet of magic, to some extent, and the things it doesn't do well, it can splash easily through draw manipulation and the powerful mana available in the format. Blue has the best card quality spells, the best draw, now it has one of the best aggressive creatures(delver), it has most (all?) of the stack-based control worth using, now it has snapcaster, to get more use out of all their already great spells, and it has the best way to cheat something rediculous into play (show and tell)... what does it actually need? removal, easy - splash swords off fetches and tundras. Bigger creatures to cast fairly? Toss in a goyf splashed off tropical islands + fetches.
Weather blue should have all those things, I don't think so, and I REALLY hope they fix the colour-pie violations in standard (blue should not have a 3/2 flyer for 1, or the best grave recursion (snapcaster) available to standard.), but it's too late to fix the shattered remains of the colour pie in the world of legacy.

As I said earlier in the thread, though, I think the imbalance is a bit overstated - there are solid, playable decks without blue, they typically aren't "as good" as the blue decks (some arguably are on the same level, though), but for those of us who get bored playing forces and brainstorms in every deck, there are other options, and with some skill and metagaming they can win sometimes.

[Namida]

As I said earlier in the thread, though, I think the imbalance is a bit overstated - there are solid, playable decks without blue, they typically aren't "as good" as the blue decks (some arguably are on the same level, though), but for those of us who get bored playing forces and brainstorms in every deck, there are other options, and with some skill and metagaming they can win sometimes.

I think that it's a bit odd that you think that the perception of the color imbalance is overblown, yet you also seem to believe that the main reasons *not* to play blue are because you've gotten bored of playing blue/want to win tournaments with the difficulty cranked up to "hard mode" or something.

You seem to be resigned to the fate of blue reign, and you might be right for doing so since it appears that R&D is either lazy or just downright inconsiderate. I don't want to just say "Blue gets it all," but every time I get attacked by Insectile Aberration on turn two, I just have to wonder why this Aberration saw print.

[Jenni]

You seem to be resigned to the fate of blue reign


About sums it up, yes.
I say it's overblown, because if, for whatever reason, you chose not to play blue, you still have options, which a lot of people seem to ignore or not acknowledge. Blue is still pretty far ahead of the other colours though.



you might be right for doing so since it appears that R&D is either lazy or just downright inconsiderate


I don't know if I would say they are lazy or inconsiderate. At this point, I don't think they could reasonably fix the colour imbalance in legacy. They could potentially go on a banning spree, but I think doing that would cause too many problems in the format... blue is the strongest colour, but, without blue in it's current seat of power.. what happens? Blue keeps players fair - Force of will especially is a huge part of keeping the "I win" decks in check. Brainstorm helps dig for answers as often as it helps dig for combo pieces. Delver and snapcaster we could do without, since the format was fine before them, but I don't know that the format gets any better without them, they're powerful cards, but given the power level in legacy already, they aren't really breaking the format, and even without them blue was ahead of the other colours.
So, it's not unreasonable for them to just count legacy as a blue format, and focus on trying to balance Standard, Extended(if that's still a thing), and modern.

Regarding stuff like delver and snapcaster, though, I think those were pretty serious mistakes for colour balance in standard, moreso than here in legacy, and I really expect more from wizards R&D in terms of keeping things fair in standard. Since that is a format that is correctable - stuff rotates out, mistakes get buried in the past, and the format refreshes itself every couple months - there is a lot of room for R&D to realize they messed up, and correct those problems in the future, but I don't really see much from them in terms of recognizing delver as a bad idea (really.. an aggresive 3/2 flyer for 1, that gets better from instants... in blue? how was that not a bad idea for standard? -.-).

[Namida]

The issue that I'm having about your opinion is that you seem to be thinly veiling a belief that it's almost idiotic to opt *not* to play blue, despite trying to argue that non-blue decks are a viable choice.

I agree with you in that I'm not sure there's not much to be done about it at this point, but I think it's folly to say "The notion of color balance is overblown" only then to go "And blue is by far the best color" in the same breath.

The reason I was being critical of R&D here is that blue is already the best color, yet they just can't seem to put a cork in the fountain that is ridiculous blue cards. Delver is an abomination that I don't think should have seen print. I'm willing to forgive Snapcaster to some extent only because it's an Invitational card, but they definitely expressed concerns about it's power level. Another example is Temporal Mastery--it turned out to be a dud, but they were expressing that they had serious concerns about the card's power level, as well.

You may be correct in that the aforementioned cards may not be format breaking because blue's dominance has reached a level where it doesn't even matter...but when you have a dam and it breaks, I don't think the next move should be to just say "fuck it" and go play in the water. I dislike your approach on the matter because it gives WotC free reign to actually not care at all about how the blue cards they print affect other formats, and that is my main criticism about how they design cards right now. I don't advocate the bannings that you assume would be required to actually bring blue back down to earth, but I also don't advocate giving up on gradually working toward actually trying to make some sort of balance happen.

[Lord Seth]

(really.. an aggresive 3/2 flyer for 1, that gets better from instants... in blue? how was that not a bad idea for standard? -.-).If Standard didn't happen to have Ponder and Mana Leak in it at the same time, I don't think Delver would have had much of an impact. For example, Delver had very little impact in Block. Delver of Secrets (for Standard) by itself is honestly not that amazing of a card.
Another example is Temporal Mastery--it turned out to be a dud, but they were expressing that they had serious concerns about the card's power level, as well.Where?

[Darkenslight]

If Standard didn't happen to have Ponder and Mana Leak in it at the same time, I don't think Delver would have had much of an impact. For example, Delver had very little impact in Block. Delver of Secrets (for Standard) by itself is honestly not that amazing of a card.

And yet, Delver/Snapcaster is probably the most potent creature 1-2 since Ravager/Disciple in Block.


Where?

In the preview article for the card. That's why it costs so damn much vanilla (5UU).

[Kich867]

I'm highly dubious about this card. Even if you consider Reverberate to be overcosted, you're still taking an already-existing card considered to be fair, making it cost less, and then adding a 2/1 creature on top of that. It all seems a bit much.

How is it a bit much?

Dark Confidant is literally Dark Tutelage that costs less and has a body, the whole "copy/steal something for a turn" is a pretty sweet aspect of Red that needs some serious attention. Standard has the right moves with Zealous Conscripts and similar effects, but a legacy-playable reverberate would be pretty god damn awesome.

I also don't see the point to make cards so heavily biased against blue, Goyf, Bob, SFM, they can all be (and are) played in blue decks while still being absurdly good in non-blue decks...

Could a blue deck run this theoretical wizard? Yes. But it would give non-blue decks a serious answer to a lot of Blue's answers. You now have a creature that can counter other counters, it can double up on your burn and put a body down, there's a nearly unlimited list of absurd things you could do with that card that don't even involve blue. Hell a card like that may almost make some kind of Team Italia land destruction deck viable between Raze and Sinkhole..

[FieryBalrog]

Wizard's meticulous concern for the color pie goes out the window when it comes to Blue more than any other color.

Why does Blue have the best tribal aggro in Eternal? And I mean there's only two other tribes that even comes close. Isn't blue supposed to be the WORST tribal aggro color and white the best; what's white's best tribe, soldiers? (lol)

Why did they print Insectile Abberation? :laugh: Time to give the best aggro one drop in the game to blue! Roll over, Wild Nacatl.

Also, Show and Tell? Is this the least blue card ever? There was a time in the game when Wizards almost literally threw up their hands and went, "this card is kinda weird, so, uh, it's blue I guess." Especially Urza's block, Jesus Christ. Show and Tell is especially stupid since the effect was pretty obviously already in green (http://magiccards.info/lg/en/99.html).

[rufus]

Why does Blue have the best tribal aggro in Eternal? And I mean there's only two other tribes that even comes close. Isn't blue supposed to be the WORST tribal aggro color and white the best; what's white's best tribe, soldiers? (lol)

Blue doesn't have strong tribal aggro. Merfolk is an aggro/control deck that preys on decks which use islands.


Why did they print Insectile Abberation? :laugh: Time to give the best aggro one drop in the game to blue! Roll over, Wild Nacatl.
The theory that makes the most sense to me is that it was printed to push transform cards on competitive players. (Have any of the other transform cards made a splash?)

[Koby]

The theory that makes the most sense to me is that it was printed to push transform cards on competitive players. (Have any of the other transform cards made a splash?)

Huntmaster of the Fells, but your point is still valid. Transform is just a gimmick in most players' eyes. It was forced and everyone knows it.

[xfxf]

Just because of that I wouldn't say no to a Delver of Secrets ban in Legacy even though I play RUG. Also, could be an interesting shift in the metagame. Once RUG looses footing combo would start making its presence stronger and it could lead to a change in the Stoneblade, RUG, Maverick, Combo quartet.

[Lord Seth]

And yet, Delver/Snapcaster is probably the most potent creature 1-2 since Ravager/Disciple in Block.How? As I've pointed, the card seemed to make very little headway among the top decks that I looked at.


In the preview article for the card. That's why it costs so damn much vanilla (5UU).I read through the preview article (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/190). I could have missed it (I kind of skimmed a bunch of it), but I didn't see anything about power concerns for the card. If anything it seems rather low-key about its potential power.
(Have any of the other transform cards made a splash?)Huntmaster of the Fells, Garruk Relentless, Bloodline Keeper, Daybreak Ranger, and Mayor of Avabruck.

[lordofthepit]

Ouchies Ponder
B
Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. For each card, you may pay two life. If you do, put it into your hand; if you don't, exile it.

Sorcery speed Ancestral Recall that costs 6 life is still broken.

[KobeBryan]

Sorcery speed Ancestral Recall that costs 6 life is still broken.

This card is beyond broken.

Chances are you will take 2 cards. pay 4 life. fetch.

[Fizzeler]

How? As I've pointed, the card seemed to make very little headway among the top decks that I looked at.

I read through the preview article (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/190). I could have missed it (I kind of skimmed a bunch of it), but I didn't see anything about power concerns for the card. If anything it seems rather low-key about its potential power.Huntmaster of the Fells, Garruk Relentless, Bloodline Keeper, Daybreak Ranger, and Mayor of Avabruck.

Garruk, I still see Maverick decks with him as he is removal in Green that isn't Swords and his Wolves chump block goyfs and the like

I agree Wizards needs to step up and increase the power of other colors, Red in particular has really lost power lately, Black has lost some of its power and gained some overpriced fatties

Overall nice article

In terms of Legacy I agree somewhat that there are many decks out there that have yet to be discovered in the current card pool, sometimes you just like to brew

[Jenni]

The issue that I'm having about your opinion is that you seem to be thinly veiling a belief that it's almost idiotic to opt *not* to play blue, despite trying to argue that non-blue decks are a viable choice.

I don't think not playing blue is "idiotic". I would say it's probably not optimal, though.


I agree with you in that I'm not sure there's not much to be done about it at this point, but I think it's folly to say "The notion of color balance is overblown" only then to go "And blue is by far the best color" in the same breath.

My point isn't that the colours are balanced in legacy. They aren't. My point is just that you don't have to use the best colour to have a chance. I say it's overblown because a lot of people seem to be under the impression that if your deck isn't blue (or some "I win automatically" combo), then it's not worth playing. That isn't the case - it might not be the "best" option, but if you know how to pilot it, and metagame correctly, you can still do well with non-blue decks.


The reason I was being critical of R&D here is that blue is already the best color, yet they just can't seem to put a cork in the fountain that is ridiculous blue cards.

Ah, I agree in that case.
Again, I do expect more from wizards R&D keeping colours balanced in new sets, and they seem to pretty consistently fail to maintain balance (or the colour pie) in new sets, too. I don't expect them to try to fix the eternal formats, honestly, but in the rotating formats, where they can keep things under control, I expect them to at least try, and they pretty consistently disappoint me in that regard.

[Lord Seth]

This card is beyond broken.

Chances are you will take 2 cards. pay 4 life. fetch.Why would you fetch? Any cards you don't put into your hand are exiled. There'd be no need to shuffle away cards you don't want.

Which actually makes the hypothetical card even stronger...

[Namida]

I don't think not playing blue is "idiotic". I would say it's probably not optimal, though.

My point isn't that the colours are balanced in legacy. They aren't. My point is just that you don't have to use the best colour to have a chance. I say it's overblown because a lot of people seem to be under the impression that if your deck isn't blue (or some "I win automatically" combo), then it's not worth playing. That isn't the case - it might not be the "best" option, but if you know how to pilot it, and metagame correctly, you can still do well with non-blue decks.


I think I understand where you're coming from. What I was getting at specifically concerning your messages is that you intend to convey that non-blue decks are viable, but every time you mention someone actually choosing to play a non-blue deck, it's like I can feel you cringing through my computer: "For whatever reason people want to not play blue" and "When we get bored of packing Force of Will and Brainstorm"--the message I am receiving is that you don't believe a person *who wants to win* should ever choose not play blue.

In saying that winning without blue requires skill and "proper metagaming," you are implying that such factors aren't as important when you can cast Force of Will and friends. And that is why there is this prevailing notion that non-blue decks for the most part are an exercise in futility--Even in trying to argue the case *for* non-blue decks, you're actually saying "Slipping Islands into your deck is like punching in the Konami Code before a tournament. If you want to beat the game, you can do it without the God Mode cheat on (but I wouldn't recommend doing that if all you want to do is get to the end)." I disagree with you because your stance claims that this is fine because it is not impossible to have success, but I don't think it is fine that the choice to not play blue cards has become tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot right before running in the 100m dash--sure, you still have a chance, but it's going to be harder to win it all because you gimped yourself.

I can agree that this might just end up being the way that things have to be because blue has literally become a Juggernaut of sorts, but I don't believe that the solution is to just resign ourselves to the fact that blue is king and to give up on working toward some sort of long term solution that could make the balance a bit more equal. In this way, I'd have the say the biggest reason that the current state of affairs bothers me is that R&D failures in balancing new sets contribute to this blue dominance in Eternal formats, which is going in the opposite direction of what I personally think is correct. That said, I also can't say I expect them to focus on Eternal at all (though I think it would be nice)--it just bothers me that their mistakes in Standard are actually contributing something I dislike about Legacy.

[Ignithas_]

Blue doesn't have strong tribal aggro. Merfolk is an aggro/control deck that preys on decks which use islands.
While Merfolk isn't aggro on the circle with Control, Tempo, Aggro and Midrange, it's aggro on the aggro, control, combo triangle. And I think he meant this. And Merfolk doesn't prey on decks which use islands, it preys for combo decks the most and has normally a decent to very good MU against U (depending on the strategy).



The theory that makes the most sense to me is that it was printed to push transform cards on competitive players. (Have any of the other transform cards made a splash?)
One of my friends is a passionate R player and he always say, that Delver and Snapcaster Mage are the strong cards, R should have gotten.

[xfxf]

But Delver and Snapcaster are already cards which R got.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22676-Deck-U-R-Delver

[ahg113]

But Delver and Snapcaster are already cards which R got.
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?22676-Deck-U-R-Delver

I see what you did there, I like it.

I agree that the game (Legacy in particular) is fun, fairly balanced, but out of whack. Instead of worrying about what happens in Standard, the easiest way for Wizards to address our (presumed) needs is to print elevated cards in the other colors (be it of some library manipulation or not) in specialty sets. Planechase was a great opportunity to make exciting cards for the other colors, but the two most sought after cards obviously had blue in them. Maelstrom Wanderer for EDH and Shardless Agent for Hypergenesis combo.

The cards we'd like to have can be printed as often, and as many, as Wizards wants in EDH, Planechase- non-type 2 legal sets.

Basically, the people that love blue, they love it because it's the best color and it wins. If any other color could provide that "je ne sais quoi," then that'd be the next best thing. The fact that so many people dislike blue (a strong sub-theme of this thread), shows that there is demand for a rebalancing of the color wheel.

But hey, scrubs play for last place anyway.

[Shawon]

WotC should reprint and expand some of their Future Sight lands. I would be excited to see Horizon Canopy in all colors as well as Grove of the Burnwillows. Allied colors only, though. I don't think a UR Grove land would be good for Legacy. At all.

[FieryBalrog]

Ah, I agree in that case.
Again, I do expect more from wizards R&D keeping colours balanced in new sets, and they seem to pretty consistently fail to maintain balance (or the colour pie) in new sets, too. I don't expect them to try to fix the eternal formats, honestly, but in the rotating formats, where they can keep things under control, I expect them to at least try, and they pretty consistently disappoint me in that regard.

Really the saddest part.