[Article] TCRF: Griselbanned?

[Michael Keller]

New article (http://jupitergames.info/articles/2013/53079/the-cutting-room-floor-griselbanned) is up.

[wcm8]

Reanimating a creature, even if the creature literally said 'at end of turn, win the game', is not ban-worthy. It requires a minimum of two steps:

1. Get creature to graveyard
2. Cast reanimation spell

The first step can be achieved most easily via Entomb, but often the reanimator deck will be forced into using a more difficult method: Careful Study or Hapless Researcher (and similar cards), which require the creature to be either in hand or in the next draw or or two; self-targeting with something like Thoughtseize; or burning an entire turn by keeping a hand of 8 cards to go to the end discard step.

And of course once that's achieved, you still need to follow it up with a reanimation spell. This generally isn't occuring on the same turn, at least for conventional reanimator decks or until the game has already proceeded to the mid-game.

All of these steps are easily disruptable, and every color and deck archetype has access to the appropriate disruption. Your garden variety of counterspells or discard can stop the chain, the creatures themselves can be destroyed (least effective, but potential option), and every color has access to good graveyard hate options (Relic of Progenitus, Tormod's Crypt, Faerie Macabre, Surgical Extraction, Rest in Peace, Deathrite Shaman, Scavenging Ooze, the list goes on and on). Heck, theres' even a land (Karakas) that deals with most troublesome reanimator targets, not to mention how a timely Wasteland can give the Reanimator player fits.

I think we can stop calling for the banning of Griselbrand, because there's really nothing about the Reanimator archetype that pushes it beyond the realm of acceptably powerful in Legacy. The other tier 1 and tier 1.5 decks in Legacy all have the tools available to them to supress this strategy if it ever became an actual worry.

I enjoyed the article though, nice overview of the Tin Fins deck!

[DLifshitz]

I think we can stop calling for the banning of Griselbrand, because there's really nothing about the Reanimator archetype that pushes it beyond the realm of acceptably powerful in Legacy. The other tier 1 and tier 1.5 decks in Legacy all have the tools available to them to supress this strategy if it ever became an actual worry.

Yeah, if it didn't need a banning before Deathrite Shaman and RIP arrived, why ban anything from Reanimator now!? It's even more of a glass cannon than it used to be.

[.dk]

For those that think Deathrite takes care of reanimator, I suggest testing Tin Fins against any of those decks. Deathrite really isn't very hard to win through.

Thanks for the article - provided a good overview of the deck and I think a good picture in to the "cheating" of permanents into play in Legacy. I'm actually not sure if banning Entomb, however would be enough to make Tin Fins go away. Honestly, the deck is pretty good off of a Show and Tell as well as the reanimation plan.

Also glad you mentioned the parallels with Lich...

Makes me want to get with Richard Cheese and actually finish off the Tin Fins primer...

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Reanimating a creature, even if the creature literally said 'at end of turn, win the game', is not ban-worthy. It requires a minimum of two steps:

1. Get creature to graveyard
2. Cast reanimation spell

The first step can be achieved most easily via Entomb, but often the reanimator deck will be forced into using a more difficult method: Careful Study or Hapless Researcher (and similar cards), which require the creature to be either in hand or in the next draw or or two; self-targeting with something like Thoughtseize; or burning an entire turn by keeping a hand of 8 cards to go to the end discard step.

And of course once that's achieved, you still need to follow it up with a reanimation spell. This generally isn't occuring on the same turn, at least for conventional reanimator decks or until the game has already proceeded to the mid-game.

All of these steps are easily disruptable, and every color and deck archetype has access to the appropriate disruption. Your garden variety of counterspells or discard can stop the chain, the creatures themselves can be destroyed (least effective, but potential option), and every color has access to good graveyard hate options (Relic of Progenitus, Tormod's Crypt, Faerie Macabre, Surgical Extraction, Rest in Peace, Deathrite Shaman, Scavenging Ooze, the list goes on and on). Heck, theres' even a land (Karakas) that deals with most troublesome reanimator targets, not to mention how a timely Wasteland can give the Reanimator player fits.

I think we can stop calling for the banning of Griselbrand, because there's really nothing about the Reanimator archetype that pushes it beyond the realm of acceptably powerful in Legacy. The other tier 1 and tier 1.5 decks in Legacy all have the tools available to them to supress this strategy if it ever became an actual worry.

I enjoyed the article though, nice overview of the Tin Fins deck!

This all is true of Hermit Druid. But why have a stupid easy combo in the format? What does it add to the game?

[dontbiteitholmes]

This all is true of Hermit Druid. But why have a stupid easy combo in the format? What does it add to the game?

Hermit Druid is effectively a one-card combo though. That alone makes it unfair to compare it to other cards.

[nitewolf9]

It's a 1 card combo that dies to any creature removal spell and graveyard hate as well. And you need to untap with it. I think Hermit Druid would be fine.

[Dark Ritual]

I think that if something were to be banned it would inevitably be griselbrand honestly. To me, entomb is the card to ban as it grants a level of consistency that might be 'too good' in the eyes of the DCI. But griselbrand would still be abused in legacy a lot if left unbanned not to mention it IS the most powerful creature in the game. Paying life to draw cards has never been fair outside of bad cards like greed and such but greed costs 2 life and a black mana. Paying 1 life to draw 1 card is inherently unfair, and griselbrand will ALWAYS be abused in legacy unless WotC bans all of the enablers (show and tell, all the cheap reanimation spells in the game, all fast mana like dark ritual, etc. etc.)

Hermit druid is a 1 card combo, just like survival. Like survival it loses to all the same hate. Was survival fine? Not at all. Not to mention, people would hate losing to that deck. Oh, so my opponent just had zero answers for my turn 1 hermit? Guess I win. Sounds like a fun game.

[nedleeds]

Survival is fine. You have to cast what you get with it, or attack (eventually), with non-evasive 4/3's subject to all the grave hate that's been printed in the last 1.5 years. It's no worse than Entomb which was banned for years.

[dontbiteitholmes]

It's a 1 card combo...

You can stop there though.

A one card combo shouldn't be compared to a 2 card combo ever, especially when the one card costs 2 mana.

Apples and Oranges so find another comparison.

[Fatal]

I also agree that Griselband should get an axe, there are too many options to abuse Griselband into play - don't ban them all - most of them aren't scarry before Griselband - for example S&T decks, but now a day it's just pure evil.

As I mention i other thread Griselband can't be answered by 1-on-1 card if he is cheated (in some way) to play. That's why its so overpowered. Its 1 card: engine and wincon. How many times you win the game when on opposite site it hit the table ?

[Zombie]

Power level aside, Griselbrand (and Emrakul and Omniscience and so on) are an affront to thinking. Like, absurdly powerful critters are fine. Anything NO-able is fine. Sphinx of the Steel Wind is fine, as is Inkwell Leviathan. The Darksteel Colossi. Blazing Archon, Angel of Despair, all a-ok. But they're all awkward in their own way - either they solve specific problems or need setup. Griselbrand and it's ilk don't. They just win, basically regardless of anything. They are, in short, dreadfully dull. As Carsten said in one of his articles, they take away the magic from Magic. Why do an elaborate loop to draw a ton of cards or concocts some kind of winning game state when one retardedly powerful card can shortcut all that and just win? Nevermind that the shell will always be the same sort. A Hulk deck and a Craterhoof deck need to be pretty drastically different. Griselbrand and Emrakul? Not so much. Just insert cheaters and protection.

[catmint]

Neither Show&Tell, Reanimator or TinFins are a problem. Their popularity and success comes in waves which is fine. They have all significant weaknesses and can be hated out very effectively. TinFins does not really add anything to the issue. It is a bit faster than reanimator, easier to play than storm and surely got some people by surprise. But at the end of the day it trades consistency and resiliency for speed (as seen in other combo archetypes) and cannot be seen as a strictly better Griselbrand deck than Reanimator or Show&tell variants.

I am in the camp of thinking the format has so many powerful tools & archetypes it is able to handle a lot more stuff from the banned list. Also I want as many different viable decks as possible and banning Griselbrand would significantly hurt the mentioned combo decks. You should not be allowed to prepare optimally for combo because there are only a couple of viable archetypes out there.

Edit:

...Griselbrand and it's ilk don't. They just win, basically regardless of anything....
You obviously haven't played (enough) with Griselbrand decks to experience the "level of regardlessness" of your win. :laugh: Life total is something that is attacked pretty hard in legacy right?

[Maximus]

I think any deck with Griselbrand offers way more methods of interaction than say Deathrite Shaman does. Griselbrand.dec can lose to hand disruption, graveyard disruption, on the stack, to removal, to variance, to a good clock, etc. Deathrite Shaman offers no punishable deck design characteristics, no good methods to gain tempo or advantage on removing it, no desirable methods to counter it, its utility only increases as the game progresses on many fronts, and it has a much more centralizing effect on the format. I would ban DRS before Griselbrand.

I know that the article only really addressed Griselbrand and its implications. I just don't think it's the most obnoxious card in the format. Not even close.

[Azdraël]

I'd like Legacy players for once to stop whining over combo and actually play the deck, or do the endeavour to side against it and see that it's really beatable by many different means. As Survival was, but oh wait, nobody took the pain to side properly against it. More seriously, it takes every single hate combo can take, that is to say, discard, counter, hatebear and grave removals. Isn't that enough?

Good article though.

[Rune]

(This is probably more of a general rant than an actual response to the article)

It's almost comical how TinFins receives so much attention when it's quite easily the worst Griselbrand deck. It's like people are asking LED to be banned because Belcher is too strong. I've had a hard time figuring out why anyone would choose to play a less resilient and more inconsistent version of Reanimator, but then I remembered how important doing flashy shit is for many Magic players. With TinFins I'm guesing people (re)discovered how broken Entomb + Griselbrand + reanimation effect is, but the deck is just using a very bad shell to play those cards in.

In any case, I think Griselbrand decks (even TinFins) are infinitely better than anything else you can be doing in Legacy. It's truly mind-boggling just how criminally underplayed the card is. Griselbrand is not actually a beatable Magic: the Gathering card. I wrote the exact same thing a year ago, and nothing about this has really changed. Part of the reason is that people refuse to pile on the hate in sufficient amounts, but the other problem is that the most effective hate cards are both limited in number and also pretty narrow (Humility, Gilded Drake, etc.). They aren't guaranteed to actually do anything either, because Reanimator and Sneak & Show can attack from different angles. This is why I think TinFins is a completely fair deck in comparison. If it ever became dominant, you would simply need to adjust with appropriate amounts of Leylines/RiP and Counterbalances.

Both Griselbrand and Show and Tell are very banworthy, but I'm not really a fan of banning anymore (probably because I made the mistake of buying into Modern), so I'd rather see them change things up in a different way. Unbanning Survival would be cool since tutoring up Faerie Macabres and Mind Control creatures is going to be an effective way of fighting the Griselbrand decks. Survival itself is also much more beatable now than it was when it got banned. The other option would be to print more good hosers. An example could be an O-ring with split second on the EtB ability.

[DLifshitz]

I've had a hard time figuring out why anyone would choose to play a less resilient and more inconsistent version of Reanimator

DRS and RIP. Tin Fins is quite obviously better than traditional Reanimator in a metagame full of those cards. But if maindecked graveyard hate falls out of favour, then traditional Reanimator will probably be better again...


It's truly mind-boggling just how criminally underplayed the card is.

It can't be played more. When its presence and visibility increases, people start packing more graveyard and SnT hate. It's a self-regulating process, essentially.

[slave]

Nice article Hollywood - cheers.
I agree with your sentiment that Grisel is pretty overpowered, but you still have to cheat him into play, opening yourself to so many forms of hate.
So I doubt the ban-hammer is close.


... entomb is the card to ban. ....Oh, so my opponent just had zero answers for my turn 1 hermit? Guess I win. Sounds like a fun game.

Disagree that entomb needs to be banned.
The sheer amount of hate available to counter entomb's effectiveness says that Entomb won't be be banned again.
And I also think Hermit is a line-ball call. Yes it's powerful, but it's 2cmc with summing sickness. With cards like Abrupt Decay and the usual suspect of counter, discard and creature removal, I don't think it's power will be what it once was.

But to the point, because DRS is so popular, some seem to be thinking it prevents grave shenanigan's being strong anymore.
As a fella who plays Dredge regularly, should any player out there wish to play 4xDRS as their only gravehate, they're requesting a lesson.


Neither Show&Tell, Reanimator or TinFins ......have all significant weaknesses and can be hated out very effectively.
You obviously haven't played (enough) with Griselbrand decks to experience the "level of regardlessness" of your win. :laugh: Life total is something that is attacked pretty hard in legacy right?
Agreed - very true.
I play Grisel myself, and quite often against a whole myriad of decks, by the time I've gotten him into play I can't pay the 7life. So I have to wait a turn and hope like hell I get to swing....
Grisel IS overpowered, but not unbeatable. Same deal as Emrakul.

[alderon666]

Grisel IS overpowered, but not unbeatable. Same deal as Emrakul.

Name an unbeatable card. Just one.

Every card can be answered. If there was a card:

All I Do is Win 1
Instant
All I Do is Win can't be countered.
All I Do is Win can't be target of spells or abilities while on the stack.
Remove all permanents from the game. You win the game.

Now that's unbeatable. The problem with banning creature like Griselbrand is that every time they print a huge monster that wins the game when it hits the table, people are going to want it to be banned.

[morgan_coke]

actually alderon, Time Stop would answer that.

[Esper3k]

actually alderon, Time Stop would answer that.

And Meddling Mage effects too! :laugh:

[Barook]

Name an unbeatable card. Just one.

Every card can be answered. If there was a card:

All I Do is Win 1
Instant
All I Do is Win can't be countered.
All I Do is Win can't be target of spells or abilities while on the stack.
Remove all permanents from the game. You win the game.

Now that's unbeatable. The problem with banning creature like Griselbrand is that every time they print a huge monster that wins the game when it hits the table, people are going to want it to be banned.
Stuff like Meddling Mage would also stop it.

[SpikeyMikey]

For those that think Deathrite takes care of reanimator, I suggest testing Tin Fins against any of those decks. Deathrite really isn't very hard to win through.

Thanks for the article - provided a good overview of the deck and I think a good picture in to the "cheating" of permanents into play in Legacy. I'm actually not sure if banning Entomb, however would be enough to make Tin Fins go away. Honestly, the deck is pretty good off of a Show and Tell as well as the reanimation plan.

Also glad you mentioned the parallels with Lich...

Makes me want to get with Richard Cheese and actually finish off the Tin Fins primer...

I just want to point out that I beat it with Zoo. I mean, not that I don't think it's a playable deck, but its not like some format destroyer.

[Koby]

I just want to point out that I beat it with Zoo. I mean, not that I don't think it's a playable deck, but its not like some format destroyer.

With speaks more to the variance of the deck/format than it does the strength of either deck. Sample Size: 1.

[.dk]

I just want to point out that I beat it with Zoo. I mean, not that I don't think it's a playable deck, but its not like some format destroyer.

And for reference, Richard Cheese was running an older list without Children of Korlis. The deck has gotten a LOT better since then.

[slave]

LOL :laugh:

[Michael Keller]

Glad you all liked it!

I don't personally think it's an unbeatable deck, but giving something like Griselbrand haste and drawing your deck seems pretty good no matter what format you're playing.

[ESG]

Also I want as many different viable decks as possible and banning Griselbrand would significantly hurt the mentioned combo decks.

Catmint, surely the existence of Tin Fins, Reanimator, Sneak and Show and Hypergenesis pushes out or marginalizes far more than four decks from the format (essentially the slow, non-blue decks). Whether you view those decks as being less worthy of these four combo decks is another issue. Speaking hypothetically, if Griselbrand were banned, the only deck that would drop off the map would be Tin Fins. The others existed before Griselbrand. They certainly would take a hit from Griselbrand's exit, but they would still be fast and viable decks.

[troopatroop]

Survival is fine. You have to cast what you get with it, or attack (eventually), with non-evasive 4/3's subject to all the grave hate that's been printed in the last 1.5 years. It's no worse than Entomb which was banned for years.

This isn't funny to me. Survival was awesomely Tier-2 in Legacy for so long until Iona and Vengevine, but they killed it with those two printings. I'm VERY bitter.

[catmint]

Maybe with less combo more non-blue midrange decks would be viable, but this is not what legacy means to me. The only non-vintage format where you have to worry about combo. If you don't like that there are 2 other formats you can play. Anyway I am not even sure if more non-blue midrange decks (or slower) would make it to tier status, because there seem to be dominant ones like jund, maverick which occupy this spot.

Anyway if GY combo (reanimator, dredge) is "pushed out", show&tell is "pushed out" (Sneak Attack was not really a deck before and the other show&tell variants are slower, worse 3 card combos and/or would also get hit by loosing griselbrand), there is only storm based combo left you have to worry about. Now, despite a lot of hate thrown at it skilled pilots have success, but if there is much less other combo in the meta to worry about I can dedicate more slots hating out the view combo decks left weakening combo as a whole.

Not sure if my thinking is right, but the format feels very healthy and diverse to me. Comparing that to the mental misstep area, where so much stuff was pushed out and it was all about Stoneblade and Natural Order, this is surely better.

To me combo is a like a flower:
- It can shine for a day drawing all the attention to it (see hypes and flame "bad xyz" threads)
- There are certain season where flowers have a really hard time (metagame cycles)
- If the environment becomes to hostile flowers die (too much hate & bannings)

Perception is very subjective, but to me thinking long-term combo is more "endangered wildlife" rather than a virus "killing everything else". Also to keep combo alive it has to be something open to many people (beginners) and not only those hardcore lovers spending a couple of years practice into Storm or Dredge so they can succeed despite all the hate throwen at them. Easier Stuff like Show&Tell variants and TinFins are therefore very welcome.

[Azdraël]

To me combo is a like a flower:
- It can shine for a day drawing all the attention to it (see hypes and flame "bad xyz" threads)
- There are certain season where flowers have a really hard time (metagame cycles)
- If the environment becomes to hostile flowers die (too much hate & bannings)


That deserves a quote!

[Kich867]

Offtopic, but why exactly was Mental Misstep so good for NO-Pro? What 1 cmc card blew that deck out? And why was the blue response not to just drop spell pierce and spell snare for mana-leak or counterspell?

[Esper3k]

Offtopic, but why exactly was Mental Misstep so good for NO-Pro? What 1 cmc card blew that deck out? And why was the blue response not to just drop spell pierce and spell snare for mana-leak or counterspell?

It wasn't that MM protected cards in NO RUG so well. It's that MM slowed down the format so much and killed the decks that ran a bunch of 1-drops (fast combo, etc.) and allowed the slower NO RUG to be playable.

[AEnesidem]

Good article, it was a fun read.
To people crying for a ban again, go home. It's always the same, everytime a combo deck doinates, something has to be banned. Last month it was SnT, now it's entomb or griselbrand itself? it's not dominating the format, it's not warping it. There's no problem. Legacy is as fun and diverse as it has always been. :cool:

[Kich867]

It wasn't that MM protected cards in NO RUG so well. It's that MM slowed down the format so much and killed the decks that ran a bunch of 1-drops (fast combo, etc.) and allowed the slower NO RUG to be playable.

Ah gotcha.

[EpicLevelCommoner]

Good article, it was a fun read.
To people crying for a ban again, go home. It's always the same, everytime a combo deck doinates, something has to be banned. Last month it was SnT, now it's entomb or griselbrand itself? it's not dominating the format, it's not warping it. There's no problem. Legacy is as fun and diverse as it has always been. :cool:

I'll admit I'm still a bit new to Legacy (only one event under my belt so far), but looking at the DtB section:

3/7 Combo
5/7 Blue decks with potential for counterspells (lumping both Team America together and including Reanimator)
4/7 Black decks with potential for discard (see above, though unsure if Reanimator even runs discard)
3/7 Blue-AND-Black decks with potential for both counterspells AND discard
1/7 Decks that are neither blue or black (again, unsure if Elves do pack disruption now)
0/7 Decks that non-blue, non-black, and non-combo

To me, this seems like it is warped: either you play traditional disruption (and by that, I mean disruption that works on either the stack or the hand), combo, or both.

The reason for this, or so I believe, is the family of SnT decks as a whole is impossible to hate out without traditional disruption. You have Sneak Attack (and it's more volatile cousin, Omniscience), Hypergenesis, and Reanimator. Sneak Attack and Hypergenesis overpower the hate (as does SnT into G-Brand itself to an extent), and Reanimator can cheat from multiple zones.

Not calling for a ban on anything mind you: just more effective hate to be printed so that decks without traditional disruption have viable sideboard options to hate-out SnT-based decks.

[AEnesidem]

I'll admit I'm still a bit new to Legacy (only one event under my belt so far), but looking at the DtB section:

3/7 Combo
5/7 Blue decks with potential for counterspells (lumping both Team America together and including Reanimator)
4/7 Black decks with potential for discard (see above, though unsure if Reanimator even runs discard)
3/7 Blue-AND-Black decks with potential for both counterspells AND discard
1/7 Decks that are neither blue or black (again, unsure if Elves do pack disruption now)
0/7 Decks that non-blue, non-black, and non-combo

To me, this seems like it is warped: either you play traditional disruption (and by that, I mean disruption that works on either the stack or the hand), combo, or both.

The reason for this, or so I believe, is the family of SnT decks as a whole is impossible to hate out without traditional disruption. You have Sneak Attack (and it's more volatile cousin, Omniscience), Hypergenesis, and Reanimator. Sneak Attack and Hypergenesis overpower the hate (as does SnT into G-Brand itself to an extent), and Reanimator can cheat from multiple zones.

Not calling for a ban on anything mind you: just more effective hate to be printed so that decks without traditional disruption have viable sideboard options to hate-out SnT-based decks.

The DtB section is just a picture of how legacy currently looks. Legacy is cyclical. Maverick, jund, goblins and zoo have all been succesful decks and are decks that can or will eventually come back when the meta allows it. Legacy has always been blue based though, why? because force of will keeps combo in check and brainstorm is too good to in conjunction with fetchlands. Black has been a weak color for very long and wasn't played that much anymore till Deathrite shaman and Abrupt decay came into the picture.
SnT style decks aren't the reason for the presence of "traditional style disruption". The blue disruption has always been there because it keeps comb in check ad black is there now because BG got a power boost. efore SnT and reanimator decks were good there were still other combo decks: High tide, ANT, TES, these are all strong combo decks that need to be kept in check. If you give all the decks equal tools to fight against everything you'll end up choking combo out of the format. Every deck has its weakness. For example: Miracles really can't win against 12-post, Bant has an autoloss to elves, RUG has a hard time dealing with maverick, combo has a hard time against tempo decks and other disruptive decks and finally maverick and jund die to combo. That last part is crucial. These decks are strong against all the fair things and their weakness for unfair decks is what keeps the format cyclical and everchanging. That is the very reason why we don't get stuck with Jund dominating the format or with show'n tell dominating for ever. Every deck has it's weakness which is much needed to keep balance.

I know it's frustrating as a maverick player to lose to combo and have a bad deck in your hands when the meta is in a combo phase but if not for combo we would be stuck with powerful midrange decks like modern is at the moment.

[catmint]

The reason for this, or so I believe, is the family of SnT decks as a whole is impossible to hate out without traditional disruption. You have Sneak Attack (and it's more volatile cousin, Omniscience), Hypergenesis, and Reanimator. Sneak Attack and Hypergenesis overpower the hate (as does SnT into G-Brand itself to an extent), and Reanimator can cheat from multiple zones.

Not calling for a ban on anything mind you: just more effective hate to be printed so that decks without traditional disruption have viable sideboard options to hate-out SnT-based decks.

Hypergenesis is a deck like belcher. You have your hand and your draws... try to resolve a spell with maybe a counterspell backup and thats it. This means you have high power - low consistency. This type of deck can have a good run, but a deck like maverick or esperblade while having much lower power are among the most consistent decks of the format.

Sneak & Show is a lot more consistent altough you still have a lot of clunk in your deck and it sometimes goes Ponder: shuffle-miss, Ponder: shuffle-miss: draw, die. The deck is not overpowered because it does happen a fair amount of the time and comboing out does not result in an unconditional win. If they are on low life and you have a supreme board position them showing or sneaking a monster is often enough not a win.

Also I don't know what you mean with "traditional hate" beeing not effective. The decks you mentation can usually be attacked by discard, countermagic & wasteland - the most traditional form of hate. :tongue: If you run white weenies or burn you might need to use some specific hate, but there are also some good options available if a certain combo deck becomes very popular in your meta, but mainly you have to accept those matchups as unfavourable.

So summing up: Good and enough hate is available for everyone & combo suffers from consistency issues making them more fair on the long run than your experience might be if they combo off turn 1 with protection.

[GoboLord]

You can stop there though.

A one card combo shouldn't be compared to a 2 card combo ever, especially when the one card costs 2 mana.

Apples and Oranges so find another comparison.

Talking about Hermit Druidand one-card combos...How are these two any different?
http://magiccards.info/scans/en/gtc/82.jpg http://magiccards.info/scans/en/gtc/57.jpg
I mean, wow, they cost 1 mana more to have the same effect, but then again they provide the effect IMMEDIATELY and dont need to wait a whole turn....
Is there any combo that can be anabled with Hermit Druid, but not with the rogues above?

[Koby]

There is also a myth that in any format there needs to be a color balance. This is wrong, as evident by the cards printed by R&D set after set. For the purpose of format discussion, assume each card is colorless - then find the most effective and powerful strategies.

[catmint]

Druid lets you run non-basic lands. ;)
The spy decks have been tested and they are just a way much worse version of belcher.

[rufus]

...
I mean, wow, they cost 1 mana more to have the same effect, but then again they provide the effect IMMEDIATELY and dont need to wait a whole turn....
Is there any combo that can be anabled with Hermit Druid, but not with the rogues above?

There's a world of difference between any land and basic land. If those two had 'basic land' instead of just 'land' they'd be stupid.

[AEnesidem]

Talking about Hermit Druidand one-card combos...How are these two any different?
http://magiccards.info/scans/en/gtc/82.jpg http://magiccards.info/scans/en/gtc/57.jpg
I mean, wow, they cost 1 mana more to have the same effect, but then again they provide the effect IMMEDIATELY and dont need to wait a whole turn....
Is there any combo that can be anabled with Hermit Druid, but not with the rogues above?

how are these comparable? When playing hermit druid you can play lands, protection cantrips and better cards, with these cards you are forced in a glass cannon belcher build. Why does nobody read cards?

[Esper3k]

I think Sneak & Show becomes unplayable again without Griselbrand. He's hands down the best creature in the deck. Without him, the deck is forced to go back to stuff like Progenitus which is only good off of the Show & Tell (pretty horrible off of Sneak Attack).

Reanimator also loses a lot from losing Griselbrand. Look at the lists these days - they traditionally will run 4x maindeck. With all the great yard hate available out there these days, it's really not hard to hate out Reanimator if you want to as well.

[SpikeyMikey]

And for reference, Richard Cheese was running an older list without Children of Korlis. The deck has gotten a LOT better since then.

Oh, I agree that it should have been running Children. And Koby, I wasn't claiming that Zoo should beat it on any sort of regular basis. I was just kind of poking fun.

It's definitely a deck. I don't think it's enough that Griselbrand should be banned though. It does some cute things. But it's on par with SnT or Tendrils. It's combo. Sometimes, it's going to win through any amount of disruption. Sometimes, it'll lose to a dumb aggro deck. Most of the time, it's somewhere in the middle. I don't want to call it "fair", but really, for Legacy, it is. It's not 60%+ vs. the field. It doesn't attack the format in a manner that there is no hate for. It's not oppressive or format warping. It's just a combo deck.

[SpikeyMikey]

Offtopic, but why exactly was Mental Misstep so good for NO-Pro? What 1 cmc card blew that deck out? And why was the blue response not to just drop spell pierce and spell snare for mana-leak or counterspell?


It wasn't that MM protected cards in NO RUG so well. It's that MM slowed down the format so much and killed the decks that ran a bunch of 1-drops (fast combo, etc.) and allowed the slower NO RUG to be playable.

I have a slighty different take on that, actually. The reason that MM made NO RUG and Caw Blade so good was because everyone was running Mental Misstep. NO RUG actually had 2 paths to victory. There was the eponymous Natural Order route but there was also the *I run 8 Tarmogoyfs plus cantrips* route (4x'goyf + 4xGSZ). The key spells in that deck, therefore, were 2 mana ('goyf), 3 mana (GSZ for 'goyf) and 4 mana (Natural Order). For Caw Blade, the key spells were 2 mana (SFM) and 4 mana (Jace, TMS). But every deck in the format ran 4xMM. It'd be like running 4xSpell Snare as half your counter base in a format where the key mana costs are 1 and 3. It just didn't seem dead because people could use it on Brainstorms, Plows and Bolts. But it didn't counter anything relevant. If people had switched back to Daze (which I did a good month in advance of the ban), they'd have seen their matchups against NO RUG and Blade improve dramatically. Mental Misstep was banned for actually being bad. Of course, that's not actually shocking; a similar thing happened to

[AEnesidem]

I have a slighty different take on that, actually. The reason that MM made NO RUG and Caw Blade so good was because everyone was running Mental Misstep. NO RUG actually had 2 paths to victory. There was the eponymous Natural Order route but there was also the *I run 8 Tarmogoyfs plus cantrips* route (4x'goyf + 4xGSZ). The key spells in that deck, therefore, were 2 mana ('goyf), 3 mana (GSZ for 'goyf) and 4 mana (Natural Order). For Caw Blade, the key spells were 2 mana (SFM) and 4 mana (Jace, TMS). But every deck in the format ran 4xMM. It'd be like running 4xSpell Snare as half your counter base in a format where the key mana costs are 1 and 3. It just didn't seem dead because people could use it on Brainstorms, Plows and Bolts. But it didn't counter anything relevant. If people had switched back to Daze (which I did a good month in advance of the ban), they'd have seen their matchups against NO RUG and Blade improve dramatically. Mental Misstep was banned for actually being bad. Of course, that's not actually shocking; a similar thing happened to

that didn't make much sense to be honest. Mental misstep was extremely good and format warping. What did you expect when you print a free counter tha counters 99% of the key spells in legacy. Mental misstep slowed down the whole format, that isn't even debatable. it countered all the 1 drops without having a tempo loss (daze) and even without mana. Many decks ran misstep to stop mental misstep. NO needed a counter like mental misstep to keep faster decks at bay and to protect their combo.
You mention countering brainstorms as if it's bad. I can tell you blue player's days are ruined if they get their much needed brainstorm countered for free. Mental misstep was insane.

anyway this isn't the right thread for that, and to be honest the stupid misstep debate has been held over and over again.

[lordofthepit]

Offtopic, but why exactly was Mental Misstep so good for NO-Pro? What 1 cmc card blew that deck out? And why was the blue response not to just drop spell pierce and spell snare for mana-leak or counterspell?

I think the main reason NO RUG was good was because Mental Misstep pushed Spell Pierce out of most decklists (as well as being a nice answer to Spell Pierce). Spell Pierce is a great card against a deck that wants to aggressively play GSZ and NO, but it wasn't very played at the time since maindecks were 56-cards during the Mental Misstep era.

[Julian23]

NO RUG was the monster it was because MM slowed down the whole meta by a full turn. A full turn. Therefor decks with a later fundamental turn could easily overcome those very fast aggro decks while having a decent answer to fast combo + being able to tap out.

On a side note, I won about 60-70% of my games with NO RUG due to the 4 Vendilion Clique the deck was putting to the best use any Legacy deck ever did. The fact that it had acceleration, reach and a strong lategame plan really made it very hard to deal with. Also Jace and Sylban Library. Every card in this deck was great. I miss it so much.

Sorry, what were we talking about? I have no problem seeing Griselbrand get the axe sooner or later. I own a signed playset but who cares. Sneak Attack and Show and Tell will continue to be cards/Decks even without Griselbrand which is a good thing.

[LOurs]

I think the main reason NO RUG was good was because Mental Misstep pushed Spell Pierce out of most decklists (as well as being a nice answer to Spell Pierce). Spell Pierce is a great card against a deck that wants to aggressively play GSZ and NO, but it wasn't very played at the time since maindecks were 56-cards during the Mental Misstep era.

NO RUG was that good because basicaly it was able to win on turn 4 or 5 with very relevant back up in a meta where turn 1 was almost neutered by misstep. And imo, this deck was simply the most versatile and that meta (tarmo/clique aggro win, blasts, fast & efficient combo, huge back plan, acceleration ...).


About Grisel, could please explain me how it is possible to think about the banning of a :b::b::b::b::4: card in an eternal format such as legacy ? This is a non-sense.
As well Grisel is a breaking game card, but what the matter at this cost ? We usualy are saying that a 4 cmc card should win the game (or close to) in legacy to be considered as playable. The banning/restricted card list higher cmc is 6. And these 6 cmc cards (ie bargain, mind desire) are mostly immediate win, and at the very least as powerful griselbrand will ever be.
If you have a problem with a 8 cmc winning card in legacy, it is maybe the moment to ask yourself how this beast is playable in that format, and then you will find the possible candidate to ban...

my 2 cts

[Fl0do]

We usualy are saying that a 4 cmc card should win the game (or close to) in legacy to be considered as playable.

We usually spend 1 to 3 Mana to put Griselbrand into play.

[LOurs]

We usually spend 1 to 3 Mana to put Griselbrand into play.

this is exactly what I meant : if there is a problem, this is not grisel, this is what allows grisel to be played that easly.
Once again it is pretty logical that a resolved 8 cmc card with 4 colored manas wins a game in legacy (as it is the case in many other format). Grisel is probably the best 8+ manas creature ever printed, but it remains "only" a 8 cmc creature.
Is protean hulk broken ? no, but with flash it is. Ban flash and forget hulk. This is almost the same case here, even if grisel power exceed hulk's one, if you really think that Grisel is 'warping' the format, then argue to ban enablers if there are broken, and you will forget the demon exactly like hulk nowadays.
My opinion is that to choose grisel as the target for a ban is a mistake regarding Legacy format. The relevant target is the enabler, as often (as always I should almost say).

[xfxf]

Entomb + Shallow Grave also put Griselbrand into play with 3 mana.

[LOurs]

Entomb + Shallow Grave also put Griselbrand into play with 3 mana.

Yea, and we all know how 3 cards combo broken are . This enabler is simply fair (at the moment) to me, and I'm not sure people would be asking any banning if there were only that one.

[xfxf]

It's a two card combo. Entomb (1) and Reanimation Spell (2). The plus side is you can have 8 reanimation spells to go with your Entombs.

[Fatal]

Banning all enablers ? That's the problem which done WotC with Survival, before Vengevine it was Tier-2 narrow and funny decks, instead of banning VV they ban Survival to have no problem later.

Sure Ban S&T and Entomb and kill half of the combo presence in Legacy.

/ironic

Why we have to abandon all archetype bacause WotC printed broken card which isn't even funny.

Next to print

This is pure Win
BBBBB X 20

Creature Legend

AS ~this~ comes in to play choose opponent.

This opponent loses the game.

That will be next Griselbrand =='.

I'm against bunning Show and Tell, and Entomb they're fine before the aburd of creeping power comes from last year.

[LOurs]

It's a two card combo. Entomb (1) and Reanimation Spell (2). The plus side is you can have 8 reanimation spells to go with your Entombs.

Griselbrand, reanimation spell, grave enabler.
I count 3 cards and each of them can be disrupted to prevent from combo during the combo (grave enabler / reanimation spell / grisel). This is a false 2 cards combo to me, which requires 2 actions (put it in the gravere then animate) and the reason why this one remains fair even if powerful.
Let's compare in example to S&T : there are only 2 disruptable cards, and basicaly 1 action (snt => win). Much stronger, without even speaking about how gravehate relevant is in the format.

[LOurs]

Banning all enablers ?

No, this is not the point.
But among enablers, some could be fine, some could be broken.
Your example of survival : to ban survival was enough to put UG madness out of order. This doesnt require to ban fauna shaman or birthing pod to maintain this state, although they also are enablers ut much less powerfull.

[xfxf]

You can lead with discarding Griselbrand naturally which can't be countered which reduces it down to a single action which can be taken with 8 cards compared to 4 Show and Tells.

Edit: That was a poorly constructed sentence.

[LOurs]

You can lead with discarding Griselbrand naturally which can't be countered which reduces it down to a single action which can be taken with 8 cards compared to 4 Show and Tells.

This could happen I agree, but this situation isnt really relevant for legacy to me. It seems extremly difficult to consider "natural discard" as a reliable strategy without either additional drawing spell : it implies to get Griselbrand almost each time in first 7 or 8, pass a turn or to get drawing spell (which is similar in a way than grave enabler).

[xfxf]

My point is Show and Tell is only marginally better than other enablers and in different situations, in some others a discard+reanimate could be harder to stop than S&T. When you start discussing the details of pros and cons for each one it gets hard to clearly say which one is better. Judging by that, the actual threat here seems to be Griselbrand, but I still don't think it is unstoppable enough to warrant a ban.

[Arsenal]

You can lead with discarding Griselbrand naturally which can't be countered which reduces it down to a single action which can be taken with 8 cards compared to 4 Show and Tells.

Edit: That was a poorly constructed sentence.

If you're relying on your discard step, then you're allowing your opponent to develop his board, which would give him more options (and time) to find a way to disrupt your combo. This is rarely the right play for Reanimator.

[Einherjer]

"Will its reign over Legacy continue?"

What did I miss?

[Kich867]

If you're relying on your discard step, then you're allowing your opponent to develop his board, which would give him more options (and time) to find a way to disrupt your combo. This is rarely the right play for Reanimator.

So far the only time I've done that was against Burn because a goblin guide put me up to 8 cards on his turn.

*EDIT* It felt really good, I happened to just have the Iona both games.

[LOurs]

My point is Show and Tell is only marginally better than other enablers and in different situations, in some others a discard+reanimate could be harder to stop than S&T. When you start discussing the details of pros and cons for each one it gets hard to clearly say which one is better. Judging by that, the actual threat here seems to be Griselbrand, but I still don't think it is unstoppable enough to warrant a ban.

It is your opinion, I understand it, I respect it but i'm not sharing it.
I consider S&T much better than any current reanimation combo (only my opinion) because
1) rea is much more hatable (especialy in a meta where cards like rest in peace, deathrite shaman, surgical or grafediggers cage see lots of play)
2) rea requires more ressources & more tweaks
It doesnt mean that grisel/rea isnt powerful when well piloted as well, but clearly a step beyond s&t to me.

My point is that these recent huge-creature release (prog then colossus then rakul then jin then grisel for the biggest) are making older enabler out of the range of acceptable power for the format.
Survival or more recently the debate around S&T are good example of that. I'm not happy of that issue as well as I really like these enablers.
This issue is currently coming from creature, we agree, but it doesnt mean to ban them is the best answer to solve this situation once it happend. In my opinion : if we start to ban those creature, the B&R list will become huge in a few because I dont think that creature power will decrease in the futher sets. One can support that or not, but that's what I expect. I simply think that if you "must" ban something, we should choose tthe way to ban the minimum of cards, and in that view, I think to ban enabler seem more logical.

[Zombie]

Short banlists are seriously overrated. I'd rather have a format with Survival and a bunch of otherwise-irrelevant-but-broken-with-Survival critters banned. Because a format with Survival in it is more fun than a format with Vengevine in it. Besides, we have filters nowadays people.

Similarily, I'd keep SnT in, perhaps. Reanimation spells definitely. In any case I want to see Griselbrand, Emrakul and Omni gone because their sheer inanity.

[Ertai87]

This article was much less convincing than Carsten's original article, which I think this tried to riff off of but didn't quite do the deal. This article seemed to come from the position of "Tin Fins is broken, ban Griselbrand" (yes, I'm exaggerating, but the article was very focused on Tin Fins rather than Griselbrand as a card), and Tin Fins isn't actually even performing that well; I haven't even seen it show up in many SCG Open T8s or seen it in MODO results much (although I don't look much at MODO anyway...).

The problem with Griselbrand et al continues to be the same problem that Carsten pointed at in his article. It takes the magic out of Magic. I was talking with a buddy of mine the other day (who posts on The Source regularly, so I won't name names) and we basically agreed that playing combo decks should require some element of puzzle-solving, whether it's figuring out how to manage your resources with a Storm deck, or how best to play around disruption with a reanimator deck, how much to mill yourself at a time with a Dredge deck, and so on. The problem with Griselbrand et al is that they take all that out of the game. I'm loath to use the term because it gets overused to much when it's not supposed to, but the "Infinity in a Can" cards (as Carsten referred to them) really do dumb down the game; instead of having to think about things, you can just jam your cards, and if something goes wrong, it's either "Oh, I still have all these" or "I guess I'm dead because my draw is shit". I've found that playing against S&T decks really does devolve into whoever draws better wins; there is almost no skill in the matchup. Sometimes you have all the countermagic for your opponent's kill spells and you get there, and sometimes they have all the anti-hate and they get there. It really is a no-skill matchup, on either side of the table. Comparatively, when playing with a deck like ANT (and to a lesser extent TPS), you have to manage your resources just in case your opponent has it, and when playing against the deck you have to know what the critical points in the combo stream are to throw your countermagic at so you can beat them before they refuel.

I don't think anything needs to be banned for power level reasons (although I do agree with the sentiment that if things like Griselbrand can see print and not be banned, there are no shortage of things that could come off the banned list), but playing a deck (or against a deck) like S&T or TinFins just isn't fun Magic for me.

[Psyqo]

(everything)

I second that entire statement. Are they format warping and therefore ban worthy? Probably not. Are they fun to play with or play against? Usually not.

[Kich867]

I second that entire statement. Are they format warping and therefore ban worthy? Probably not. Are they fun to play with or play against? Usually not.

I have to agree, S&T decks are a blowout in one direction or the other, there's no battle nor is there any thought, it's just play shit and hope for the best. Reanimator VS SnT is just whoever hits a Griselbrand first wins or who has the double counter backup.

Certainly something can be said about Reanimator being similar, but it's so much more vulnerable to hate that's more generically useful. S&T decks are unique in that the "hate" for them is not all encompassing and dedicating sideboard slots to the matchup is the worst feeling ever. It's actually awful. It's silly that you have to sideboard specifically for a deck, not like a strategy, but a single deck because without preparation it just herp derps you on turn 2. Or 1.

[Sansian]

As someone who has played combo since prosbloom, I think SnT decks are an abomination. The decks require minimal skill and their decision trees are more akin to a fence post.

[Lord Seth]

The problem with Griselbrand et al continues to be the same problem that Carsten pointed at in his article. It takes the magic out of Magic. I was talking with a buddy of mine the other day (who posts on The Source regularly, so I won't name names) and we basically agreed that playing combo decks should require some element of puzzle-solving, whether it's figuring out how to manage your resources with a Storm deck, or how best to play around disruption with a reanimator deck, how much to mill yourself at a time with a Dredge deck, and so on. The problem with Griselbrand et al is that they take all that out of the game.How is that any different from any 2-card combo, though?

[Esper3k]

Most combo decks aren't actually that hard to play, nor are they actually that interactive for your opponent (have Force? No? Then die).

Flow chart for most combo decks goes:

1) Can I go off? If yes, go to 2. If no, Brainstorm/Ponder or draw more cards.
2) Do I think my opponent has Force of Will? If yes, go to 3. If no, attempt to go off.
3) Can I do anything about it? If yes, do something about it. If no, attempt to go off.

[Rune]

As someone who has played combo since prosbloom, I think SnT decks are an abomination. The decks require minimal skill and their decision trees are more akin to a fence post.

That's delusional. Obviously S&T decks are less of a mindfuck to play than something like Doomsday, but there's still an absurd amount of things you need to figure out and think about during a match.

[Kich867]

That's delusional. Obviously S&T decks are less of a mindfuck to play than something like Doomsday, but there's still an absurd amount of things you need to figure out and think about during a match.

The extent of that can only be "I hope they don't have a Knight, Karakas, or Oblivion Ring in hand." ... "AW YEAH GAME 2!".

[teonsw]

The extent of that can only be "I hope they don't have a Knight, Karakas, or Oblivion Ring in hand." ... "AW YEAH GAME 2!".

Although SnT is starting to run stifle.

[Kich867]

Although SnT is starting to run stifle.

Well there you go now they're fine.

[Michael Keller]

Although SnT is starting to run stifle.

That just seems...bad.

[catmint]

I do not agree with you Ertai87.

Playing a show&tell deck there is a lot of magic to be played. Sure the skill cap is lower than playing ANT, but ANT can also give you easy hands where you go cantrip into discard and go off turn 2, where counting to 10 was your biggest achievement. With show&tell mulligan decisions are big and you do have 10-12 cantrips which are not just about "getting a 2 card combo and attempt to resolve it". You manage/balance life total, opponents board position (comob-win is not unconditional), assembling the combo & playing around disruption.

So the argument "no skill" and who draws better is just stupid and wrong. Yes, you feel the skill-difference stronger if a noob plays a non-linear "beat-all deck" like esper or a super complex doomsday deck compared to when a noob plays burn or show&tell, but on the long term skill makes still a huge difference for burn and show&tell as well.

That the magic games with Show&Tell themselves don't feel satisfactory is very subjective. Just because battling with super skill intensive "complex combo" vs. blue aggro-control might be fun for some guys does not justify it as "right magic". Ask the elves or lands player how satisfactory it is for them to play against ANT...

Also, what is the attitude of: "no skill involved". Besieds it not being true: If you want the player with the biggest skill to always win, play chess. Magic is in a way like Poker where the short term results are influenced a lot by luck. I think it is good for the game if newcomers can grab a deck and feel to have a shot for top16 if they have a run. They will enjoy legacy and get probably better at it. If they don't improve they will loose enough no matter if they play show&tell or not.

[Koby]

That just seems...bad.

It works better with Omniscience (and so does Not of this World...), but then it becomes a 2.5 card combo just to protect the target.

[LOurs]

I would agree with Catmint there.

I think that winning a big tourney is winning a big tourney, whatever the deck you're running.

If it was so easy to win with, we'll see much more SnT that we're already seeing currently. Yes the engine is maybe less complicate than other combo, but it remains a combo approach, and as every combo approach, it requires good expectation of the opponents moves, good knowledge about the meta, to avoid misplays, to well know the weakness etc ...

In legacy, I'm much more frustated to loose vs burn than to loose vs SnT combo (no offense to burn pilots).

[Fatal]

Interesting if we stay down without any action to such a cards like Griselband what would be next ? Anyone has any ideas what this card could have to be more boken ? Ah - shroud/protection for him that's missing.

I said no to cards which doesn't need thinking just drawing cards to counter-all. Eldrazi's was first step to dump power creep out of control.

Those two change and outclasses all other creatures printed before which can be put in to play - Iona - Maybe some day Griselband is still better - removal / Karakas or Knight doesn't matter Jin-Gitaxias - which was alert for players that WotC forgot about fun which brings Magic and release the beast called power creep - same mechanism are in online games. Developers forgot about to rule which bring fun - and just develop more powerful stuff, because everyone want better (forgot that better mean other not more powerful) which brings them faster sell and fast profits - but diversity is changing until everyone is just bored playing the same - this way brings to end, I hope they change direction.

[LOurs]

I'm in the opinion that WotC wants to make MTG a creature based game, in each format and more than that, probably in each strategy.

Historically, regarding eternal formats, creature has almost always been the weakest card type among others in term of brokeness : land, instant, sorcery, enchantment, even planeswalker and as well artifact has had (or still has) very broken card among them (I admit this analysis is subjective) more than creature type does. Ban & restricted card list shows that well. These range of power leads to very powerful non-creature based deck, in control strategy and in combo strategy. And I think WotC doesnt really enjoy these kind of deck.
Maybe (it's a speculation I admitt) WotC is just searching how creature could also become a major content of combo strategy in eternal format, and drawing cards (jin / grisel) are by far the best kind of engine to manage to do it. Maybe also I'm totaly wrong.

[DLifshitz]

I'm in the opinion that WotC wants to make MTG a creature based game, in each format and more than that, probably in each strategy. [...] Maybe (it's a speculation I admitt) WotC is just searching how creature could also become a major content of combo strategy in eternal format, and drawing cards (jin / grisel) are by far the best kind of engine to manage to do it. Maybe also I'm totaly wrong.

While it's true that WotC probably wants the game to be oriented around creatures, I blame the recent parade of very powerful ones like Jin and Griselbrand for them wanting to cash in on EDH. However, quite a few of the most powerful have been banned recently (Emrakul, Griselbrand, Sundering Titan, Primeval Titan) so there's some hope WotC will learn its lesson and stop pushing 6+mana creatures so hard.

[Zombie]

If you want to make creatures matter more in more traditional-style combo, all you really need to do is print more utility Elves and GSZ targets. The deck is already versatile and fast, it just needs stuff like disruption and anti-hate to slot in a bit easier.

[LeoCop 90]

I think grisel should be banned. Decks like reanimator, show and tell and so on are already powerful enough .... they don't need a creature that wins the game anytime hits the battlefield. I mean, there is nothing you can do about griselbrand outside dealing a lot of damage to the opponent before he comes into play.... and he usually comes into play from turn one to turn three.

[LOurs]

If you want to make creatures matter more in more traditional-style combo, all you really need to do is print more utility Elves and GSZ targets. The deck is already versatile and fast, it just needs stuff like disruption and anti-hate to slot in a bit easier.

While it's true, elves is more an aggro/combo kind of deck. I was thinking more in example about ANT/High Tide/omniscience kind of deck (pure combo). And I think current Sneakshow iterations are more following that move. I precise that I'm not especialy supporting that though neither especialy blaming that, just thinking.


[...] so there's some hope WotC will learn its lesson and stop pushing 6+mana creatures so hard.

In term of equity, the only edges of broken 6+ manas creatures should be the difficulty to cast them; it should imply to dedicate a full deck to make them work correctly and so artificially create a kind of "brittleness" in the strategy. Same goes for cards like Omniscience, AN or any other "winning engine" card.

[LOurs]

they don't need a creature that wins the game anytime hits the battlefield

I dont get the point as the main goal of rea or snt is strictly to play "creature that wins the game anytime hits the battlefield". This is the DNA of that kind of deck. Of course they need it.


I mean, there is nothing you can do about griselbrand outside dealing a lot of damage to the opponent before he comes into play.... and he usually comes into play from turn one to turn three.

You also could play 4 needle/revoker md, stifle the effect (14>7 cards), run mephistopheles chain (pretty efficient & fast) etc ... solutions exists. Now do they fit in your deck ? Is it healthy for the format ? Not sure. But answer exist beside just damage the opponent.

[Azdraël]

I think grisel should be banned. Decks like reanimator, show and tell and so on are already powerful enough .... they don't need a creature that wins the game anytime hits the battlefield. I mean, there is nothing you can do about griselbrand outside dealing a lot of damage to the opponent before he comes into play.... and he usually comes into play from turn one to turn three.

Actually they do. So after Grisel being banned, you would certainly want Jin to be hammered? Stop whining and side more efficiently, don't do like those dumb*** who did not take the pain to side against Survival.

[slave]

(sigh)
All this talk of Grisebrand needing banning is reminding me of similar whinging about Dredge.
yes, Dredge is powerful, but there is sooooo much hate that can shut it down, so like has been said before, and will be said again;
Plan your sideboard to shut down such strategies and have fun.
It's just a game, remember?

[TraxDaMax]

Griselstorm/Tinfins has been a deck for some time, what was the keycard to let the "Ok world go nuts"- trigger go off? Shallow Grave? Children of K?
By this I also mean what caused so many to start playing it? This discussion about Griselbrand is hilarious though. I think the chief is probably the strongest thing you can be doing.
I'm no fan of banning though in general. Play Runeflare Trap GG

[Koby]

I know for me, the proper introduction was phazonmuant's decktech at SCG Atlanta in mid February, then more camera time with Caleb Durward. I like to think I did a good job promoting the deck too between my stream channel and the featured matches at SCG Vegas, plus the respectable finish. There was a list floating around back in June 2012 that featured all the core items of the deck, however it got lost in the bruhaha regarding traditional Reanimator.

[SpikeyMikey]

I think grisel should be banned. Decks like reanimator, show and tell and so on are already powerful enough .... they don't need a creature that wins the game anytime hits the battlefield. I mean, there is nothing you can do about griselbrand outside dealing a lot of damage to the opponent before he comes into play.... and he usually comes into play from turn one to turn three.

I think you should go play Standard. Oh wait, they have a reanimator deck that wins the game any time Angel of Glory's Rise hits the battlefield. Hmm, maybe you should play block. Should be right up your alley.

[LeoCop 90]

Probably all people writing here are Griselbrand players because they don't want to admit how broken he is.

Sure it is possible to side against him, but people can't build a side only for one card ( for example 4 pithing needle in sideboard) because in legacy there are a lot of combo decks to take care of.

Show and Tell decks can be efficiently hated if they don't have griselbrand, for example making the opponent sacrifice emrakul or progenitus. If they play omniscience then it is a three card combo and it is fine. Instead if they play griselbrand they simply answer all your hate by drawing 14 cards and countering. This is because griselbrand wins the game every time he hits the battlefield, unlike jin-gitaxias and other creatures.

Say what you want, but reanimator and show and tell were strong also before the printing of griselbrand, and griselbrand is just a too powerful creature. If he can be played in legacy then there is no reason why a lot of other cards are still banned.

[undone]

Probably all people writing here are Griselbrand players because they don't want to admit how broken he is.

Sure it is possible to side against him, but people can't build a side only for one card ( for example 4 pithing needle in sideboard) because in legacy there are a lot of combo decks to take care of.

Show and Tell decks can be efficiently hated if they don't have griselbrand, for example making the opponent sacrifice emrakul or progenitus. If they play omniscience then it is a three card combo and it is fine. Instead if they play griselbrand they simply answer all your hate by drawing 14 cards and countering. This is because griselbrand wins the game every time he hits the battlefield, unlike jin-gitaxias and other creatures.

Say what you want, but reanimator and show and tell were strong also before the printing of griselbrand, and griselbrand is just a too powerful creature. If he can be played in legacy then there is no reason why a lot of other cards are still banned.

GB feels broken but after taking my tin fins cards out of my storm deck I started to realize that tin fins is just bad storm. ANT/TES are just upgrades to the deck. Tin Fins is worse than existing decks but as my friend said "A deranged monkey could pilot tin fins and win so even I can." That's what this is really about. ANT/TES take some skill to play while Tin Fins is simply "Reanimate GB, draw 21... I uh... cast spells to tendrils for 14? Oh wait no tendrils? I entomb/shallow children... draw 21 uh... kill you?"

We were discussing how grisselbargain is still even in legacy just barely good enough. Think about that for a minute. Grisselbargain exists, and is still not the number one deck in the format (rug still holds that title) think about that for a moment. If we've gotten to the point where GB is barely good enough then why ban it?

People are forgetting why we ban cards. It's not simply because they are broken or we'd have far more banned cards in our format than not.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Anyone who thinks that Griselbrand is on the same level as cards like Emrakul or Jin-Gitaxias should not be trusted in their opinions on Magic. The plain reality is that unlike these other two, dealing with Griselbrand after he hits play is almost entirely irrelevant (if it's even possible.)

[catmint]

lol @ "if its even possible" IBA. Have you ever played with a Griselbrand deck? You will be surprised how he can be dealt with. Attacking the life total is a good start. :wink:

Anyone who did play Griselbrand decks for a while will come to the conclusion he is fine. The rest who lost a couple of games with whatever nonsense they are playing against it or is in fear that combo takes over because people are overrating Tin Fins and Sneak and Show has a good months on tcdecks should just shut up and wait a bit. The meta development will show you the truth.

Or if you really think it's broken buy in and show everybody how you will win from now on...:laugh:

[Arsenal]

That's what I'm still trying to figure out from all the Griselban! whiners; if he's as broken as they claim, why hasn't the format turned into Griselbrand vs. anti-Griselbrand decks? The way people are whining, you'd think Griselbrand is Flash v2.0. Honestly, tournament results haven't shown Griselbrand decks to be out of control.

[Koby]

That's what I'm still trying to figure out from all the Griselban! whiners; if he's as broken as they claim, why hasn't the format turned into Griselbrand vs. anti-Griselbrand decks? The way people are whining, you'd think Griselbrand is Flash v2.0. Honestly, tournament results haven't shown Griselbrand decks to be out of control.

March results --
Sneak Attack (26)
Reanimator (9)
Tin Fins (8)
OmniTell (6)

49 total results. None of these decks can compete without Griselbrand. Let's examine just March's tournament performance (TCdecks, since that's what DTBF is based upon)

Setting the cutoff at 90% of the metagame:


Pos Archetype Points 2281 Cumulative GB?
1º Threshold UGr 216 9.5% 9.5%
2º Sneak Attack 209 9.2% 18.6% Yes
3º Blade Control 190 8.3% 27.0%
4º Miracle Control 138 6.0% 33.0%
5º Jund 124 5.4% 38.4%
6º Ad Nauseam Tendrils 104 4.6% 43.0%
7º Maverick 97 4.3% 47.3%
8º BUG Control 96 4.2% 51.5%
9º Goblins 75 3.3% 54.8%
10º Elves 68 3.0% 57.7%
11º Reanimator 61 2.7% 60.4% Yes
12º The Rock 57 2.5% 62.9%
13º Rest in Pieces 55 2.4% 65.3%
14º Team America 54 2.4% 67.7%
15º Nic Fit 49 2.1% 69.8%
16º UR Burn 48 2.1% 71.9%
17º Merfolks 44 1.9% 73.9%
18º Death and Taxes 43 1.9% 75.8%
19º OmniTell 38 1.7% 77.4% Yes
20º Belcher 37 1.6% 79.0%
21º Tin Fins 36 1.6% 80.6% Yes
22º MUD 35 1.5% 82.2%
23º Deadguy Ale 32 1.4% 83.6%
24º Dredge 32 1.4% 85.0%
25º Fish 32 1.4% 86.4%
26º All Spells 30 1.3% 87.7%
27º Zoo 28 1.2% 88.9%
28º Post Ramp 26 1.1% 90.0%

This gives us a 15.1% penetration for Griselbrand decks. Sneak Show obviously accounting for the largest portion, but new-comer Tin Fins is quickly being adopted. Reanimator too has been a consistent Top 10 ranking deck as well. What's also interesting? Surgical Extraction has also hit the Top 20 most played cards in March and outnumbering Tarmogoyf, and its last Top 20 appearance was back in October.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

lol @ "if its even possible" IBA. Have you ever played with a Griselbrand deck? You will be surprised how he can be dealt with. Attacking the life total is a good start. :wink:

Yeah, attacking into 7/7 flying lifelinkers is everywhere and always a winning play.


Anyone who did play Griselbrand decks for a while will come to the conclusion he is fine. The rest who lost a couple of games with whatever nonsense they are playing against it or is in fear that combo takes over because people are overrating Tin Fins and Sneak and Show has a good months on tcdecks should just shut up and wait a bit. The meta development will show you the truth.

Or if you really think it's broken buy in and show everybody how you will win from now on...:laugh:

Okay, ignoring your inability to form coherent sentences or speak without emoticons like a fourteen year old girl for a second, this is a different argument.

The argument of whether or not Griselbrand should be banned is completely different from an argument that Griselbrand is no better than Jin-Gitaxias or Emrakul, which is complete and total nonsense.

This is like the argument that people were making when we were talking about Brainstorm that Brainstorm can't be banned because people would just play Ponder instead. It doesn't require you agreeing with the underlying premise that Brainstorm should be banned to see why such an argument is dumb.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

That's what I'm still trying to figure out from all the Griselban! whiners; if he's as broken as they claim, why hasn't the format turned into Griselbrand vs. anti-Griselbrand decks? The way people are whining, you'd think Griselbrand is Flash v2.0. Honestly, tournament results haven't shown Griselbrand decks to be out of control.

The shortest answer I can give you is that people have different reasoning for why or when a card should be banned, and not everyone agrees that a card has to utterly dominate the metagame in order to be banworthy.

Also if you want to participate in adult conversations you should probably not attempt to just dismiss people you want answers from as "whiners," it makes you look churlish.

[feline]

March results --
Sneak Attack (26)
Reanimator (9)
Tin Fins (8)
OmniTell (6)

49 total results. None of these decks can compete without Griselbrand. Let's examine just March's tournament performance (TCdecks, since that's what DTBF is based upon)

Setting the cutoff at 90% of the metagame:


Pos Archetype Points 2281 Cumulative GB?
1º Threshold UGr 216 9.5% 9.5%
2º Sneak Attack 209 9.2% 18.6% Yes
3º Blade Control 190 8.3% 27.0%
4º Miracle Control 138 6.0% 33.0%
5º Jund 124 5.4% 38.4%
6º Ad Nauseam Tendrils 104 4.6% 43.0%
7º Maverick 97 4.3% 47.3%
8º BUG Control 96 4.2% 51.5%
9º Goblins 75 3.3% 54.8%
10º Elves 68 3.0% 57.7%
11º Reanimator 61 2.7% 60.4% Yes
12º The Rock 57 2.5% 62.9%
13º Rest in Pieces 55 2.4% 65.3%
14º Team America 54 2.4% 67.7%
15º Nic Fit 49 2.1% 69.8%
16º UR Burn 48 2.1% 71.9%
17º Merfolks 44 1.9% 73.9%
18º Death and Taxes 43 1.9% 75.8%
19º OmniTell 38 1.7% 77.4% Yes
20º Belcher 37 1.6% 79.0%
21º Tin Fins 36 1.6% 80.6% Yes
22º MUD 35 1.5% 82.2%
23º Deadguy Ale 32 1.4% 83.6%
24º Dredge 32 1.4% 85.0%
25º Fish 32 1.4% 86.4%
26º All Spells 30 1.3% 87.7%
27º Zoo 28 1.2% 88.9%
28º Post Ramp 26 1.1% 90.0%

This gives us a 15.1% penetration for Griselbrand decks. Sneak Show obviously accounting for the largest portion, but new-comer Tin Fins is quickly being adopted. Reanimator too has been a consistent Top 10 ranking deck as well. What's also interesting? Surgical Extraction has also hit the Top 20 most played cards in March and outnumbering Tarmogoyf, and its last Top 20 appearance was back in October.

What's also interesting? Surgical Extraction has also hit the Top 20 most played cards in March <--------------Where did you find this information? I would love to have access to checking up on something like that regularly!

[Koby]

http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/mostplayedcards.php

[HammafistRoob]

Everything IBA writes is just pure win.

[feline]

Well, this thing is awesome! thank you for the link

[Kich867]

Everything IBA writes is just pure win.

Sometimes he goes a bit too far into the realm of, "I'm making a point that's tangential to the actual point at hand and arguing for the sake of arguing to prove a point that in reality no one particularly cares about."

But then he uses a word like 'churlish' and I'm like, "Fuck yeah, IBA. Fuck yeah."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's true, I'm pretty great.

[catmint]

Cheer for IBA. He is so great. Talking a bunch of non-sense and then using personal attacks if people disagree. :tongue: (I am using this icon like a 14 year old girl to show you I still smile about our argument and don't take myself too seriously.) Enough flaming from us both I think. I suggest we talk about the subject again.


Yeah, attacking into 7/7 flying lifelinkers is everywhere and always a winning play.
Apparantly I have to outline everything in detail to avoid misunderstandings. I obviously meant attacking the life total before Griselbrand hits play? If he can't draw 7 then you can just use an exile, sweeper, bounce or edict effect. There are also enough situations where Griselbrand just stalls the game if the opponent was able to establish a mighty board position and the life total is low enough. One unrelated real life example: Last GPT my friend playing maverick beat sneak&show on the draw after a turn 1 Griselbrand just having a Karakas on turn 1. Extreme example, but it happens.



Y
Okay, ignoring your inability to form coherent sentences or speak without emoticons like a fourteen year old girl for a second, this is a different argument.

The argument of whether or not Griselbrand should be banned is completely different from an argument that Griselbrand is no better than Jin-Gitaxias or Emrakul, which is complete and total nonsense.

True, it is a different argument and I also did not talk about that but rather made a generic statement that everybody complaining about Griselbrand should start playing with it and see if he suddenly wins more than before. It is so obvious that Griselbrand is on a different power level than Emrakul and Jin-Gitaxias that I am wondering why you keep talking about it. But I am with Koby on this: Without Griselbrand Snak&Show, Reanimator, Tin-Fins and Omnitell cannot compete and I don't think that would be a good thing to happen. I think with less combo diversity in the format it is easier to hate out the other combo decks left. Maybe I am wrong on this. Predicting what happens to a format is truly difficult, so I would be curious to hear what people "pro banning Grisel or show&tell" think the format will become.


Concerning Koby’s posts:
As I said in my other post: The data from this month is not relevant to evaluate whether or not Grisel is dominating the format. Look back in tcdecks since mai 2012. You will see that there have been spikes where sneak&show or omnishow were strong but this was only a short period of time. That GY based combo decks like Reanimator, dredge & Tin-Fins will have ups and downs in success is also just normal depending on the amount of GY hate that is present in the meta. Similar to Koby’s approach I could take a month where BUG & RUG Delver had way more than 15% (Decemeber 2012) and state that Delver is suppressing. But it changed and Midrange/control took over (January, February 2013). And then combo got stronger again (March 2013). Looks to me like a constant healthy change of the Meta.

If you talk about combo decks you have to understand the following concepts:
1) In general there is a consistency tradeoff when doing something powerful: Sneak&Show, Tin-Fins,… will never be able to execute their Gameplan as consistent as RUG, UW control or Maverick. Also ANT will never have as much turn 1 kills als Belcher but be overall more consistent. Little comfort if you lose to Tin-Fins within 5 minutes in your round 1 match, but you have to accept that as part of legacy and look at the bigger picture.

2) Combo's success depends on metagame cycles. Click TC decks since January 2012 and take notes on how successful Tempo, control/midrange, combo and Gy-combo have been in every month and you will see the format being in constant movement.

These concepts seem to be tough to understand. Even by the combo players themselves. If you look that some people still think “the rouge hermit” is a deck. Or if you read the Tin Fins thread you constantly see that people say “how nuts the deck is” (Trust me: it is balanced in terms of power vs. consitency).

To finish off my post:
I think we should be more interesting in saving combo on the long term. Wizard’s idea of magic is obviously different than what legacy is at the moment. Legacy is the only “playable” format where combo exists, so I think we should handle this “treasure” with care.



To me combo is a like a flower:
- It can shine for a day drawing all the attention to it (see hypes and flame "ban xyz" threads)
- There are certain season where flowers have a really hard time (metagame cycles)
- If the environment becomes too hostile flowers die (too much hate & bannings)

[LOurs]

Without Griselbrand Snak&Show, Reanimator, Tin-Fins and Omnitell cannot compete and I don't think that would be a good thing to happen. I think with less combo diversity in the format it is easier to hate out the other combo decks left.


the question of the role of combo in the current & futher legacy meta is a relevant & interesting point.
Griselbrand banning is a part of that reasonning as well, but your question implies a larger question : "would it be better to keep a known broken card among the unrestricted pool of cards just to keep combo alive ?". I dont have the answer and I dont argue here that Griselbrand is broken or not. But I think to analyze the brokeness of Griselbrand in the current meta is a necessary step in establishing an answer to you larger question.



Okay, ignoring your inability to form coherent sentences or speak without emoticons like a fourteen year old girl for a second, this is a different argument.


should we understand that the (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''') in your signature block is a relevant evidence of your age and your ability to establish reasonings ? It's maybe time to plug your brain to the discussion, or at the very least to use it before writing that kind of childish & useless argumentary.

[Arsenal]

March results --
Sneak Attack (26)
Reanimator (9)
Tin Fins (8)
OmniTell (6)

49 total results. None of these decks can compete without Griselbrand. Let's examine just March's tournament performance (TCdecks, since that's what DTBF is based upon)

Setting the cutoff at 90% of the metagame:


Pos Archetype Points 2281 Cumulative GB?
1º Threshold UGr 216 9.5% 9.5%
2º Sneak Attack 209 9.2% 18.6% Yes
3º Blade Control 190 8.3% 27.0%
4º Miracle Control 138 6.0% 33.0%
5º Jund 124 5.4% 38.4%
6º Ad Nauseam Tendrils 104 4.6% 43.0%
7º Maverick 97 4.3% 47.3%
8º BUG Control 96 4.2% 51.5%
9º Goblins 75 3.3% 54.8%
10º Elves 68 3.0% 57.7%
11º Reanimator 61 2.7% 60.4% Yes
12º The Rock 57 2.5% 62.9%
13º Rest in Pieces 55 2.4% 65.3%
14º Team America 54 2.4% 67.7%
15º Nic Fit 49 2.1% 69.8%
16º UR Burn 48 2.1% 71.9%
17º Merfolks 44 1.9% 73.9%
18º Death and Taxes 43 1.9% 75.8%
19º OmniTell 38 1.7% 77.4% Yes
20º Belcher 37 1.6% 79.0%
21º Tin Fins 36 1.6% 80.6% Yes
22º MUD 35 1.5% 82.2%
23º Deadguy Ale 32 1.4% 83.6%
24º Dredge 32 1.4% 85.0%
25º Fish 32 1.4% 86.4%
26º All Spells 30 1.3% 87.7%
27º Zoo 28 1.2% 88.9%
28º Post Ramp 26 1.1% 90.0%

This gives us a 15.1% penetration for Griselbrand decks. Sneak Show obviously accounting for the largest portion, but new-comer Tin Fins is quickly being adopted. Reanimator too has been a consistent Top 10 ranking deck as well. What's also interesting? Surgical Extraction has also hit the Top 20 most played cards in March and outnumbering Tarmogoyf, and its last Top 20 appearance was back in October.

Would you be able to do the same analysis for Griselbrand, but for the entire time he's been legal in Legacy and not just for March 2013? Also, would you be able to do the same analysis for Flash and the entire time (I know, it wasn't very long) it was Legacy legal? I'm interested in seeing how dominant Flash was during it's lifetime versus Griselbrand during it's lifetime. Also, the strategies involving Griselbrand vary (traditional Reanimtor versus OmniTell) whereas FlashHulk decks didn't vary that much (iirc).

[Koby]

I could do Griselbrand, and would need some time to crunch the data from TCdecks. There are obvious waxes and wanes in the Legacy metagame and attendance across the year. For instance, December is always a slow month due to holidays, etc. Give me another week or so to find the time to put together a complete picture.

FlashHulk probably not. The data from that era was not well documented, or the sources that did document it are now obsolete (deckcheck.org). It also offers no pattern to today because as we've seen numerous times, the DCI (c/o R&D) is very arbitrary with its B/R decisions.

Regardless of how Griselbrand is used, it effectively ends the game once it's in play. Some strategies use him for attacking (Reanimator), others use him only to draw cards (OmniShow, Tin Fins); the end result is a low-interactive game that ends very soon. The decks that use Griselbrand design this into their game plan; much like Ad Nauseam decks win once its marquee spell resolves. It's no different here.

[Arsenal]

I could do Griselbrand, and would need some time to crunch the data from TCdecks. There are obvious waxes and wanes in the Legacy metagame and attendance across the year. For instance, December is always a slow month due to holidays, etc. Give me another week or so to find the time to put together a complete picture.

FlashHulk probably not. The data from that era was not well documented, or the sources that did document it are now obsolete (deckcheck.org). It also offers no pattern to today because as we've seen numerous times, the DCI (c/o R&D) is very arbitrary with its B/R decisions.

Regardless of how Griselbrand is used, it effectively ends the game once it's in play. Some strategies use him for attacking (Reanimator), others use him only to draw cards (OmniShow, Tin Fins); the end result is a low-interactive game that ends very soon. The decks that use Griselbrand design this into their game plan; much like Ad Nauseam decks win once its marquee spell resolves. It's no different here.

Griselbrand is "the end", I agree. It's the "means" that vary. Sorry if I was unclear. Also, I'm interested in Flash data as it would give us a baseline standard as to what is deemed too powerful to base other arguments off of; if you can't find the data, no biggy, not your fault, but I'd still like to see if it's floating around somewhere out in Internet-land.

[Koby]

You asked, so here is the Griselbrand data I've gathered/calculated:

Data is based upon TCdecks tournaments recorded. This will not include all the tournaments, but is consistent month to month.

Raw = # of decks with Griselbrand (Reanimator, Hypergenesis, Sneak Show / OmniTell, Tin Fins)



Month Raw % of Decks with Griselbrand
May '12 48 10.90%
June '12 53 10.30%
July '12 43 11.50%
Aug '12 24 8.30%
Sept '12 48 10.20%
Oct '12 38 9.50%
Nov '12 39 9.50%
Dec '12 34 9.30%
Jan '13 30 10.00%
Feb '13 30 11.20%
Mar '13 40 14.90%


Based on raw amount, it seems to be steady between 30-50 Griselbrand decks per month. However, as a percentage of all the decks played, this is now more visible as there are fewer reported events. It is definitely more apparent the less data that is reported. I don't think all of March's events have been reported as of yet.

[Arsenal]

You asked, so here is the Griselbrand data I've gathered/calculated:

Data is based upon TCdecks tournaments recorded. This will not include all the tournaments, but is consistent month to month.

Raw = # of decks with Griselbrand (Reanimator, Hypergenesis, Sneak Show / OmniTell, Tin Fins)



Month Raw % of Decks with Griselbrand
May '12 48 10.90%
June '12 53 10.30%
July '12 43 11.50%
Aug '12 24 8.30%
Sept '12 48 10.20%
Oct '12 38 9.50%
Nov '12 39 9.50%
Dec '12 34 9.30%
Jan '13 30 10.00%
Feb '13 30 11.20%
Mar '13 40 14.90%


Based on raw amount, it seems to be steady between 30-50 Griselbrand decks per month. However, as a percentage of all the decks played, this is now more visible as there are fewer reported events. It is definitely more apparent the less data that is reported. I don't think all of March's events have been reported as of yet.

So, 10.51% over that timespan? Is that vastly disproportionate to other decks/archetypes? Is that about where other top archetypes (Delver tempo decks, BGx midrange decks, etc) sit?

[Koby]

So, 10.51% over that timespan? Is that vastly disproportionate to other decks/archetypes? Is that about where other top archetypes (Delver tempo decks, BGx midrange decks, etc) sit?

I'm not going to run the same analysis month over month, but at its height Canadian Threshold saw 16.7% of the Top 8 spots in August 2012. This was the single most popular deck of this period (May '12 to Mar '13).

[Arsenal]

I'm not going to run the same analysis month over month, but at it's height Canadian Threshold saw 16.7% of the Top 8 spots in August 2012. This was the single most popular deck of this period (May '12 to Mar '13).

EDIT: Nvmind, misunderstood what you were saying. Data proves that Griselbrand decks, all of them, aren't dominating tourneys.

[Koby]

EDIT: Nvmind, misunderstood what you were saying. Data proves that Griselbrand decks, all of them, aren't dominating tourneys.

The data does not represent nor not-represent that conclusion at all. This is a bird's 20,000 ft view down on Legacy as a whole. March's data saw a large jump for Sneak Attack from previous months in terms of ranking, which means several things specifically:

1) increased play of the deck, or being more popular in general
2) better performance in a given tournament (higher finish in Swiss = more points)

You have to specifically/mathematically define what "dominate" means in order to validate your conclusion.

As a side note, the approach I used can gauge diversity of archetypes. That might be a good metric to see if the format is evolving in a positive or degenerate way. Suppose the threshold is 80% of the most popular decks; count the unique archetypes represented and use that as the measure. The more decks that show up in this threshold, the more diverse the format is. Diversity is representing that no one or few decks is comprising a majority of the Top 8 placements.

[Arsenal]

The data does not represent nor not-represent that conclusion at all. This is a bird's 20,000 ft view down on Legacy as a whole. March's data saw a large jump for Sneak Attack from previous months in terms of ranking, which means several things specifically:

1) increased play of the deck, or being more popular in general
2) better performance in a given tournament (higher finish in Swiss = more points)

You have to specifically/mathematically define what "dominate" means in order to validate your conclusion.

As a side note, the approach I used can gauge diversity of archetypes. That might be a good metric to see if the format is evolving in a positive or degenerate way.

Good point. I suppose that if people weren't calling for any piece of RUG Delver to be banned, even though it hit 16.7%, then I find it puzzling that people are calling for Griselbrand to be banned, even though ALL decks combined only for 10.51%. I'm not sure what % should be the "standard", but if 16.7% wasn't it, how can 10.51% be it?

[catmint]

Regardless of how Griselbrand is used, it effectively ends the game once it's in play. Some strategies use him for attacking (Reanimator), others use him only to draw cards (OmniShow, Tin Fins); the end result is a low-interactive game that ends very soon. The decks that use Griselbrand design this into their game plan; much like Ad Nauseam decks win once its marquee spell resolves. It's no different here.
Like Ad Nauseam, Griselbrand is not an undondicional win. Life total is the most important resource which is attacked quite hard in the era of Delver and a "lavamancing birds of paradise." Other conditions are that there is no hate like Humility, needle,... or in case of Ad Nauseam the right draw/mana to combo and no chalice, thalia or canonist like effects. The difference of a permanent with etb: "you win the game" and Griselbrand is way bigger than you give it credit.

Concerning the Griselbrand data: Not only the % of appearance in tcdecks should be relevant. Also the overall success of these deck. But let me ask you specifically again Koby. What do you hope the format to become once Griselbrand would be gone?

[Koby]

Like Ad Nauseam, Griselbrand is not an unconditional win. Life total is the most important resource which is attacked quite hard in the era of Delver and a "lavamancing birds of paradise." Other conditions are that there is no hate like Humility, needle,... or in case of Ad Nauseam the right draw/mana to combo and no chalice, thalia or canonist like effects. The difference of a permanent with etb: "you win the game" and Griselbrand is way bigger than you give it credit.

Concerning the Griselbrand data: Not only the % of appearance in tcdecks should be relevant. Also the overall success of these deck. But let me ask you specifically again Koby. What do you hope the format to become once Griselbrand would be gone?

The overall success of each deck will take much more data mining to extract meaningful results. The bird's eye view gives enough of the picture to see a trend. That trend is pointing towards "flat" or stable right now.

I don't believe that Griselbrand as a printed card adds anything meaningful to Legacy, and the result of decks using him for degenerate strategies will alienate rather than fortify Legacy's appeal to players. I think the card was a mistake to print without more drawbacks, and as such I am attempting to push those degenerate strategies until it is answered. I realize this is contentious with my vision for Legacy, but in the long run if my efforts are successful, then Legacy will return to a more "creature combat" friendly medium. That is, StoneBlade/Maverick/RUG being solid choices, with combo being a good metagame foil to those decks.

[.dk]

I don't believe that Griselbrand as a printed card adds anything meaningful to Legacy, and the result of decks using him for degenerate strategies will alienate rather than fortify Legacy's appeal to players. I think the card was a mistake to print without more drawbacks, and as such I am attempting to push those degenerate strategies until it is answered. I realize this is contentious with my vision for Legacy, but in the long run if my efforts are successful, then Legacy will return to a more "creature combat" friendly medium. That is, StoneBlade/Maverick/RUG being solid choices, with combo being a good metagame foil to those decks.

Couldn't have said it better.

[DragoFireheart]

How many decks run Griselbrand but don't run Show and Tell?

[.dk]

Don't know the complete cross section, but Tin Fins doesn't. I believe some builds of Reanimator are packing a couple Show and Tells maindeck these days, but I'm not sure if that is the current "standard" or not.

[Arsenal]

Don't know the complete cross section, but Tin Fins doesn't. I believe some builds of Reanimator are packing a couple Show and Tells maindeck these days, but I'm not sure if that is the current "standard" or not.

2 main, 2 side is fairly standard for traditional Reanimator.

[Koby]

How many decks run Griselbrand but don't run Show and Tell?

I think that is only Tin Fins at this point.

Reanimator runs 0-4 depending on their build.
Show & Tell variants all run 4 in the 75.
Hypergenesis typically runs 4 Show & Tell to supplement its namesake.

Dredge runs 1 sometimes, but that's more of a finisher than an enabler.

[DragoFireheart]

I'm just wondering if Show and Tell is enabling Griselbrand enough to the point where it is broken rather than Grisel being broken and not needing SnT.

[Koby]

I'm just wondering if Show and Tell is enabling Griselbrand enough to the point where it is broken rather than Grisel being broken and not needing SnT.

Simple matrix analysis:
If we take out Show & Tell from the metagame, is Griselbrand still broken?
If we take out Griselbrand from the metagame, is Show & Tell still broken?

[.dk]

Seems like Reanimator should be able to function well enough with their 2 maindeck Show and Tell gone. They have in the past anyway...

And it obviously doesn't effect Tin Fins in any way.

Maybe Sneak/Show turns into the hilariously awesome Mono-R Sneak Attack deck in N&D...

Personally, I think you have a potential problem on your hands if Griselbrand is legal.

[Arsenal]

That is, StoneBlade/Maverick/RUG being solid choices, with combo being a good metagame foil to those decks.

I never viewed combo as being a good foil to RUG Delver. Blade and Maverick, sure, but not RUG Delver. In fact, don't Delver tempo decks shine versus combo whereas they're typically having a tough time versus fairer decks like Blade, Junk, Jund, etc.

[DragoFireheart]

I never viewed combo as being a good foil to RUG Delver. Blade and Maverick, sure, but not RUG Delver. In fact, don't Delver tempo decks shine versus combo whereas they're typically having a tough time versus fairer decks like Blade, Junk, Jund, etc.

I also thought this was the case.

[Koby]

I never viewed combo as being a good foil to RUG Delver. Blade and Maverick, sure, but not RUG Delver. In fact, don't Delver tempo decks shine versus combo whereas they're typically having a tough time versus fairer decks like Blade, Junk, Jund, etc.

Combo takes on many forms, not just TES. High Tide for instance, has a good RUG matchup.

[Arsenal]

Would someone be able to do what Koby did for Griselbrand decks (May '12 through March '13), but for the other top decks/archetypes in the format? If all Griselbrand decks combined come to 10.51% in that timespan, I'd be interested in knowing what the % is for all Delver tempo decks combined, all Blade Control decks combined, all Storm combo decks combined, all Jund decks combined, all Miracles decks combined, etc.

[nudon]

Combo takes on many forms, not just TES. High Tide for instance, has a good RUG matchup.

Elves has a good RUG matchup too.

[Koby]

Would someone be able to do what Koby did for Griselbrand decks (May '12 through March '13), but for the other top decks/archetypes in the format? If all Griselbrand decks combined come to 10.51% in that timespan, I'd be interested in knowing what the % is for all Delver tempo decks combined, all Blade Control decks combined, all Storm combo decks combined, all Jund decks combined, all Miracles decks combined, etc.

You can do this yourself:
1) Copy & paste this page (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdecks.php) into Excel
2) Sum up the points
3) Find the % that each archetype contributed to that sum
4) Multiply that % by the amount of decks reported and round to whole numbers

[DragoFireheart]

You can do this yourself:
1) Copy & paste this page (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdecks.php) into Excel
2) Sum up the points
3) Find the % that each archetype contributed to that sum
4) Multiply that % by the amount of decks reported and round to whole numbers

Too much work.

[Arsenal]

You can do this yourself:
1) Copy & paste this page (http://www.thecouncil.es/tcdecks/tierdecks.php) into Excel
2) Sum up the points
3) Find the % that each archetype contributed to that sum
4) Multiply that % by the amount of decks reported and round to whole numbers

I got to Point 1. Not Excel literate, so I don't know how to Sum up the points (=C2+C47 nets me 222 points, which isn't right).

[Koby]

A nation of bums.

D1=SUM(C:C) (sums the column)
D2=C2/$D$1 (relative formula for each row based on D1 as denominator)
E2=D2 (first row)
E3=E2+D3 (relative formula to find the cumulative sum)
F1 = fixed value based on each month's total decks
F2=ROUND(D2*$F$1,0) (relative formula to find the number of decks played for this archetype)

EDIT: fixed the formulas

[DragoFireheart]

A nation of bums.


A FREE nation of bums.

Get it right.

[catmint]

The overall success of each deck will take much more data mining to extract meaningful results. The bird's eye view gives enough of the picture to see a trend. That trend is pointing towards "flat" or stable right now.


Concerning the trend to be "flat": I don't want to go through the detailed work for every month but since you already put up the numbers of the % of Griseldecks, I will bring up the birdsview for success by stating for which month a Grisel-deck was a DTB and what the score of total points was compared to the number 1 DTB since Mai 2012.

Mai 2012:
1. Maverick: 643
....
9. Reanimator: 99
10. Sneak-Attack: 79

June 2012:
1. RUG Delver: 436
...
4. Sneak-Attack: 196 and DTB
...
9. Reanimator: 88

July 2012:
1. RUG Delver: 628
...
4. Sneak Attack: 278 and DTB
...
7. Reanimator: 131 and DTB

August 2012
1. Maverick 402
...
5. Reanimator 216 and DTB
...
8. Sneak attack 107 and DTB

September 2012
1. RUG Delver 404
...
5. Sneak Attack 158 and DTB
...
22. Reanimator 22

October 2012
1. Miracle 437
...
7. Omnitell 178 and DTB
...
8. Reanimator 129 and DTB
...
12. Sneak Attack 83

November 2012
1. RUG Delver 426
...
8. Reanimator 123 and DTB
...
9. Omnitell 89
...
15. Sneak Attack 64

December 2012
1. RUG Delver 376
...
7. Sneak Attack 118 and DTB
...
8. Omnitell 108 and DTB
...
16 Reanimator 68

January 2013
1. Team America 202
...
8. Sneak Attack 107 and DTB
...
10. Omnitell 78
...
16. Reanimator 63

February 2013
1. Blade Control 285
...
6. Reanimator 101 (I think this includes some tin fins) and DTB
...
8. Sneak Attack 85 and DTB
...
15. Omnitell 50

March 2013
1. Jund 224
...
4. Sneak Attack 127 and DTB
...
8. Omnitell 80
...
18. Reanimator 37
(no idea why Tin Fins is not listed in the DTB selection thread. Nihil Credo also posted the wron picture) Anyway it has not any significant position.


So according to the data this forum uses to define the DTB the highest ranking a Grisel deck could achieve was number 4. trailing the top 3 by a wide margin. To be fair Omnitell and Sneak attack are somehow related and you could make an argument for adding the numbers but it would not make a big difference. For example if you add Omnitell & sneak attack in March 2013 which is their strongest month they would be on position 3. If Kobys numbers concerning the % of participation in the meta for Grisel is correct then people playing Grisel are regularly losing more than winning since their performance on scoring points is not constant!

My conclusion is that the Grisel decks are not constantly equally strong. Reanimator (which is show&tells worst matchup) is very very swingy and there are also times where show & tell is significantly weaker. I am pretty sure in the upcoming GP everyone will have sneak & show in mind and the pilots will have a hard time going top 8 and the next month show&tells performance will drop.

Also as long as there are midrange decks in the top3 while combo decks are in positions 4-15 I don't see any broken format. Not at all...



I don't believe that Griselbrand as a printed card adds anything meaningful to Legacy, and the result of decks using him for degenerate strategies will alienate rather than fortify Legacy's appeal to players. I think the card was a mistake to print without more drawbacks, and as such I am attempting to push those degenerate strategies until it is answered. I realize this is contentious with my vision for Legacy, but in the long run if my efforts are successful, then Legacy will return to a more "creature combat" friendly medium. That is, StoneBlade/Maverick/RUG being solid choices, with combo being a good metagame foil to those decks.

That is a fair point of view and everybody can have different views on how a format should look like. But I would then ask you to underline your argument for banning with how you think the format should be and not by claiming a card is broken which is just not true looking at the numbers.

My opinion on what a good format is differs from yours. Since Delver was printed there was a loooooooooooong period of time where you could choose from 3 Tier decks (Stoneblade, Maverick, RUG) and the rest was Tier 2. That changed with the printing of Griselbrand, Miracles, Deathrite & Decay. Today you can get fucked up by a lakey, a mother, an entomb, a show & tell, a past in flames, a deathrite shaman, a delver, even a freaking bloodbraid elf keeps jace in check. Non linear decks have a very hard time trying to beat everything, so many archetypes can strive and the meta and sideboards are in constant flux.

Also I think it is important to give powerful low-skill decks to newcomers. They feel to have a shot and enjoy it more. Due to the consistency tradeoff and the skill disadvantage they will still lose a fair amount. Especially to the good and experienced players. Attracting newcomers to the format by beeing more creature combat oriented is not a good argument to me. All other formats are focused on creature combat anyway. I think they want to buy into legacy to do some crazy stuff and if non-linear decks have a harder time, a newcomer can surprise with his jund, pox, white wheeny or burn deck compared to the time where RUG, UWx and Maverick own the place completely.

[KobeBryan]

A nation of bums.



Tell that to Obama.

[Koby]

@catmint -
I'm now curious to see what happened with Survival in the months leading to its banning. I'm hoping the data is still accessible, because I want to compare now.
The TCdecks scoring system takes two data to calculate the points awarded:
1) Total number of people (and calculates X of rounds, awards X points)
2) Top 8 finish for each deck (awards a point for each win in the Top 8)

So if an 8 person tournament is submitted, 1st would be awarded 6 points (3+3 wins), 2nd would gain 5 (3+2wins), 3rd and 4th 4 points (3+1 win), and 5-8 would gain 3 points.

[Aggro_zombies]

@catmint: Mystical Tutor provides precedent for banning a component of combo decks when those combo decks were not putting up results that suggested the need for a dominance-based ban. Sometimes, cards can be banned for being basically unfun or basically overpowered even when the decks built around them are not crushing the metagame.

I mean, right now, combo in all its guises is probably at or approaching a historical high-water mark for the format. Reducing the number of Easy Mode combo decks (using Griselly Bear) would put a damper on combo and open up space for strategies better at interacting with the battlefield than with the stack.

[catmint]

Sure, dominance is not the only reason for bannings. Wanting more creature combat is a strange thing to me since modern and standard are all about creature combat anyway. The format should also not be "too combo heavy", but as long as fair decks dominate and many other fair and unfair decks are viable this is not the case. That some strategies are "fun" or "unfun" is a valid argument. A little bit up the taste of the people involved though but I can see how Show&Tell fits there. Personally I hate playing against a Goblin Lakey but enjoy it very much playing with and against any combo deck.

Combo beeing on a high is relative. It is obviously the season for combo in the metagame cycle:
Show&Tell is much stronger than in February where it was pretty weak (top of a wave)
ANT is DTB after a 2 month break

On the other hand Dredge is superlow, TES & High-Tide are very low.

If you compare it with February 2012: Dredge, ANT and Reanimator were pretty clearly DTB #3,4 and 5 scoring together 27% of the points in the top 8 of the DTB decks. Similar is it now with Show&Tell variants and Storm scoring 26% of the points in the top 8 DTB decks.

So according to this comparison the presence of combo is not vastly different from Febraruy 2012. Given that the meta will react more to show & tell and tin-fins, the overall combo % of good finishes will decrease again.

[LOurs]

Reducing the number of Easy Mode combo decks (using Griselly Bear) would put a damper on combo and open up space for strategies better at interacting with the battlefield than with the stack.

I understand your idea and I would tend to agree with, but I also think that the real issue is more about how people are estimating the skill required to win with a specific deck than about the kind of engine this same deck is using.

I mean : lots of players just hate to loose to what they consider as autopilot.dec
So more autopilot the deck is, more people are looking towards ban hammer. Often this is even not a question of math probabilities, it's a question of personnal estimated probabilities which is a pretty different thing. And the definition of "easy mode combo deck" becomes very subjective...

[Aggro_zombies]

I understand your idea and I would tend to agree with, but I also think that the real issue is more about how people are estimating the skill required to win with a specific deck than about the kind of engine this same deck is using.

I mean : lots of players just hate to loose to what they consider as autopilot.dec
So more autopilot the deck is, more people are looking towards ban hammer. Often this is even not a question of math probabilities, it's a question of personnal estimated probabilities which is a pretty different thing. And the definition of "easy mode combo deck" becomes very subjective...
Any argument about bannings and balance and format health ultimately comes down to subjective issues of fun and player satisfaction. There's no inherent reason why a one-deck metagame is a bad thing...except that players get bored and/or frustrated playing the same deck, the same way, through the same matchup over and over and over again.

If people hate losing to (or really, just playing against) a deck that prominently features a certain card, that is legitimate ground for considering a ban of that card. The deck doesn't have to be the best deck. It doesn't have to be dominant. It just needs to be unfun for enough players enough of the time.

Honestly, all this talk of whiners and haters and the tossing around of statistics kind of misses the point. Combo decks warp the metagame by excluding strategies bad at interacting with the stack; Griselly Bear, despite being a creature, is absolutely a stack-based combo engine; therefore, banning Griselly Bear will reduce the number and breadth of combo decks and thus provide more room in the metagame for midrange and aggressive decks.

[TraxDaMax]

I understand your idea and I would tend to agree with, but I also think that the real issue is more about how people are estimating the skill required to win with a specific deck than about the kind of engine this same deck is using.

I mean : lots of players just hate to loose to what they consider as autopilot.dec
So more autopilot the deck is, more people are looking towards ban hammer. Often this is even not a question of math probabilities, it's a question of personnal estimated probabilities which is a pretty different thing. And the definition of "easy mode combo deck" becomes very subjective...

If that's true ban Burn.dec? It's basicly a turn 3 kill.

[KobeBryan]

Any argument about bannings and balance and format health ultimately comes down to subjective issues of fun and player satisfaction. There's no inherent reason why a one-deck metagame is a bad thing...except that players get bored and/or frustrated playing the same deck, the same way, through the same matchup over and over and over again.

If people hate losing to (or really, just playing against) a deck that prominently features a certain card, that is legitimate ground for considering a ban of that card. The deck doesn't have to be the best deck. It doesn't have to be dominant. It just needs to be unfun for enough players enough of the time.

Honestly, all this talk of whiners and haters and the tossing around of statistics kind of misses the point. Combo decks warp the metagame by excluding strategies bad at interacting with the stack; Griselly Bear, despite being a creature, is absolutely a stack-based combo engine; therefore, banning Griselly Bear will reduce the number and breadth of combo decks and thus provide more room in the metagame for midrange and aggressive decks.

I really hope he doesn't get banned. We will be back to Stoneblade v. Rug v. maverick matchups every event. And then the occasional TES/ANT

[Aggro_zombies]

DRS and Abrupt Decay make BGx a thing too, you know. Jund will continue to exist.

I mean, it's better than RUG vs. Stoneblade vs. SnT/Sneak Attack/cheat-a-fatty combo vs. Jund, with occasional storm, but that's just me.

[menace13]

Combo decks warp the metagame by excluding strategies bad at interacting with the stack; Griselly Bear, despite being a creature, is absolutely a stack-based combo engine; therefore, banning Griselly Bear will reduce the number and breadth of combo decks and thus provide more room in the metagame for midrange and aggressive decks.

What decks are currently excluded? How is the meta warped, and compared to when/what point in time?


I really hope he doesn't get banned. We will be back to Stoneblade v. Rug v. maverick matchups every event. And then the occasional TES/ANT
Agreed


DRS and Abrupt Decay make BGx a thing too, you know. Jund will continue to exist.

I mean, it's better than RUG vs. Stoneblade vs. SnT/Sneak Attack/cheat-a-fatty combo vs. Jund, with occasional storm, but that's just me.

Actually that is less decks than his example.. So, you're actually excluding more decks from the metagame.

[LOurs]

If people hate losing to (or really, just playing against) a deck that prominently features a certain card, that is legitimate ground for considering a ban of that card. The deck doesn't have to be the best deck. It doesn't have to be dominant. It just needs to be unfun for enough players enough of the time.


Unfair =/= unfun.
That's the point I wanted to highlight.

For some player I know, dredge is an unfun deck to play, some other it's belcher and some other it's burn in example. This doesnt make these deck "unfair" most of the time but indeed "unfun" for them. If the entire meta would play burn, would it desserve a ban ? Not sure.
My point is just to say that statisticals performance analyzis should remain a relevant indicator regarding a banning decision imo, even if it should never be the only one as well.

[catmint]

Honestly, all this talk of whiners and haters and the tossing around of statistics kind of misses the point. Combo decks warp the metagame by excluding strategies bad at interacting with the stack; Griselly Bear, despite being a creature, is absolutely a stack-based combo engine; therefore, banning Griselly Bear will reduce the number and breadth of combo decks and thus provide more room in the metagame for midrange and aggressive decks.

Agree that whiners and haters in both directions are painful for the argument.

Working with statistics and numbers though is necessary and good to counter or at least put a different perspective on certain statements thrown around like "he is broken", "warping the metagame", "combo is on a historical high",... and others.

Your theory that with much less show&tell more aggro and midrange decks have a fighting chance (aka there is more format diversity) is wrong imo. Aggro basically died with Batterskull (Goblins is way more than an aggro deck to me) and has nothing to do with show&tell/Grisel. Graveyard strategies are hated so much by wizards with deathrite and rest in peace so the "fear of dredge" is very low and dredge will probably never be DTB #4 again, which is good news for non-linear decks. This is also not a problem of show&tell/Grisel. I am not even sure that there would be more creature decks viable even with 0% combo in the meta. There are certain color combinations like GW, Jund, Esper, RUG, BUG which are super-strong and just much better than junk/rock, BW, zombies, brown, big zoo, and other midrange/aggro decks. So if these strong 2-3 color non-linear “beat everything” decks don’t have to worry about all kinds of combo and non-combo decks they will optimize their md/sb for the smaller meta and bring the format to the stall like we had it before. If Show&Tell/Grisel hurt anything it hurts the viability of other weaker combo decks like Enchantress, Aluren or Painter Stone.


That the top decks score much less DTB points now compared to the time where RUG, Maverick, Stoneblade ruled is much better for format diversity and legacy without a healthy amount of combo as DTB (with rotations and cylces) is not healthy legacy. If you want to play creatures and make sure you don't loose to unfair stuff there is modern and standard right?

What I also want to point out:
Many say the lower skill requirements for show&tell makes them unfair. To me the lower skill requirement is fair since it is also balanced on the other side. The potential to gain an edge with skill using show&tell is also much more limited compared to storm combo or “3 color blue”. So to be successful with show&tell you need of course as well skill, a certain meta with limited specific hate and a bit of luck (this you need with everything but I mean luck in the sense of your faith is less in your hands). Anyone who wants to master a certain deck and crush everything (have move influence on his faith) will move on to something else and will not stick with Jund, Belcher, show&tell or burn.