[Article] North American Defeatism and the Dominance of Brainstorm [Archive] - Page 2

btm10

08-09-2014, 09:41 PM

The issue is trying to find all the pieces you need fast enough, not that you don't have the pieces.

Personally, I hate Enchantress. When I play Painter, I NEVER win. That deck... Ouch. But I guess that's the overall variance that comes with a format like Legacy having so many playable options. While it's great to have Brainstorm, it will not save you from your worst matchups if the pilot is competent.

Yeah, Painter is one of the reasons to play Enchantress.

Wrong thread for this but it's hard to believe that Humility and Oblivion Ring don't handle the main threats in Show and Tell/Sneak Attack type lists. Blue has bounce but Enchantress has access to Sterling Grove and usually plays it.

Any decent Sneak and Show player makes sure to either just hardcast Sneak Attack or Show and Tell it in with at least R available so that they can respond to the O.Ring CIP trigger by putting a fatty into play. If you O.Ring the fatty then, you only bought yourself a turn (at most), because if it's Griselbrand they can draw 14 to find another one, and if it's Emrakul they still have the Sneak Attack in play plus cantrips to find another fatty. Enchantress doesn't apply much of a clock against counter-heavy decks (you send a lot of time baiting and setting up Replenish), so it's not hard to find a second fatty game 1 barring very strong draws from Enchantress. Games 2 and 3 they just bring in Through the Breach and bypass interaction entirely. Omnitell is straight-up unwinnable because they almost never put Omniscience into play without a Cunning Wish in hand, so it's Wish --> Trickbind in response to O.Ring coming into play.

Vicar in a tutu

08-10-2014, 02:13 PM

I'm starting to come around on the thought of banning Brainstorm. However, I'm afraid it would make legacy feel much more like Modern. I have nothing against Modern (it looks like fun), but I want the two formats to feel different from each other. Brainstorm is the quintessential Legacy-card, along with Force and Wasteland.

Julian23

08-10-2014, 02:23 PM

I was just about to say: the main difference in gameplay, pace and general dynamics are the presence of Force of Will and Wasteland.

Dice_Box

08-10-2014, 02:26 PM

Got to agree. Of the three cards, Brainstorm is the one I think Legacy can survive the banning of. Without Wasteland or Force though, I shudder to think on what would become of this format.

Zombie

08-10-2014, 02:28 PM

rufus

08-10-2014, 06:04 PM

menace13

08-10-2014, 06:15 PM

Without Wasteland I shudder to think on what would become of this format.
My dreams of 5 color control crushed.

AggroControl

08-10-2014, 06:37 PM

Brainstorm gives you access to cards from 3 turns ahead at instant speed for just 1 mana on turn 1. I don't think there's another card in the format that does that. Any number of blue sorcery's can do that for 1 mana. Several blue instants can do that for 2 mana. I think Brainstorm is the only 1cc instant in the format that does that.

What Brainstorm can do that no other 1cc instant spells can:

1. Look at and keep up to 3 new cards.
2. Replace up to 2 not-wanted cards in your hand.
3. Hide up to 2 cards on the top of your library.
4. Trigger up to 3 card draw replacement effects.

Really the first thing is overpowered for any format including Vintage. You get a 7 card hand to start the game by turn 4 you'll have seen 11 cards, or 10 if on the play. On turn 1 Brainstorm allows you to look at the cards you'd normally see by turn 3 or 4 and keep all of those you want in your hand while you shuffle away the worst card of your opening hand to a fetch on turn 2. That's a tremendous difference in early predictability for the player who played the Brainstorm.

Hof

08-10-2014, 07:41 PM

Brainstorm
I think most people here know what Brainstorm does, the power of the card, as well as your opinion at this point.

TsumiBand

08-10-2014, 07:51 PM

If we think about non-blue card selection tools: Dark Confidant, Sylvan Library, Top, Green Sun, Elves' Visionary+Symbiote engine, Glimpse, Goblins' stuff. I feel OK comparing those to Ponder and Ancestral Vision, and a good number probably outclass Preordain.

Brainstorm is just way better though, not close.

It bears pointing out though that all of these are either tied to permanents in some way or are Sorcery speed. The merit of Brainstorm as a one-drop Instant that also plays the role of card draw, selection, filtering, and so on without requiring a creature or an engine (besides that other format staple, fetchlands) is what so acutely places this card over all others in its role.

Like Glimpse may as well be a Tribal Sorcery - Elf, right? It isn't an auto include on every Green list. GSZ probably is, but its value is contingent on the mana you put in, and its still Sorcery speed. It's hard to make a case for multiple-card engines competing with a Blue 4-of, is all.

nedleeds

08-10-2014, 08:28 PM

nedleeds

08-10-2014, 08:29 PM

Moved to blue??? Didn't it kind of get moved from blue to red, or is there a looting affect older then merfolk looter?

See: bazaar of bahgdad.

Adri

08-11-2014, 10:09 AM

For completeness' sake, Merfolk Traders appeared in Weatherlight. There may be an earlier looting effect, but I can't think of any other than Bazaar of Baghdad.

I think you missed Sindbad, the first creature looter in Magic history, which is a blue card and from which all other looters derive very probably. As for the discard effect before the draw effect, it is also an effect that first appeared in blue: see Krovikan sorcerer. But that does not change the fact that red misses good draw spells, which makes it the weakest color.

Rune

08-11-2014, 10:54 AM

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 10:59 AM

Your post has me confused. Why do we need to kill elves just because Brainstorm would be banned?

Rune

08-11-2014, 11:18 AM

Your post has me confused. Why do we need to kill elves just because Brainstorm would be banned?

That's just my gut-feeling. I've been playing Elves exclusively on Magic Online for about a year, and been coming out ahead by a significant margin in the Brainstorm matchups (be it Miracles, Delver variants or ANT). Without Brainstorm, I think Elves will either force people to play warped sideboards with a ton of hate or just get completely crushed. Not to mention that Elves' sideboarded Therapies and Thoughtseizes become completely absurd once you can't hide cards with Brainstorm.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 11:23 AM

Ok... Yea, no I disagree. You do not need to ban the deck that folds to any of the 2 damage sweepers. Without Brainstorm RUG still has Rough. I do not know what you have been going, but saying "Oh we banned a blue card, now let's kill a green deck" seams a might bit backward to me.

Elves is a strong deck, but you will need to remind me here, when was the last time it got 7+ placings on a top 16? Even without Brainstorm, I don't see that changing.

Hof

08-11-2014, 12:25 PM

I think any argument that blames Brainstorm for creating a stagnant, strategic uniform metagame is just categorically false. Consider that Brainstorm enables widely different decks that closely mimic all the different archetypes of Magic:

Pure control (Miracles), midrange (Shardless BUG), aggro (RUG Delver) and combo (Storm)

(You can come up with several other examples here.)

The typical "Look, 28/32 Brainstorms again!" posts don't really say a whole lot. If there wasn't strategic diversity, I'd agree we had a problem. Since there clearly IS a lot of strategic diversity in Legacy on the back of Brainstorm, you have to come up with a different argument. You can say that you want more non-blue duals to be played or that you are just tired of the card Brainstorm, but stop lazily categorizing all Brainstorm decks as the same thing.
100% this, Rune.

I am not going to tell anyone to go play Modern, but I will say that if you ban Brainstorm, Legacy will become more like Modern. Yes, Brainstorm/Ponder, and FoW are the most played cards, and yes those blue cards and Delver are dominating and shaping what much of Legacy looks like, but not through a single deck but through a myriad of different decks and variations. If we move down the list of the 20 most played Legacy cards we find a lot of powerful cards in nonblue colors: Goyf and Deathrite, StP, Bolt, Decay, Thoughtseize, Stoneforge, Liliana. Every color is represented. The idea that "blue is dominating" is clearly not adeqaute for explaining what is really going on in the format, since Legacy has very few actual blue decks outside of Merfolk, OmniTell, and High Tide, none of which are tier 1.

Legacy is very much the format of multicolored decks and strategies.
You can look at the latest SCG top 8 and say oh look 7 decks with 4 Brainstorm, but did you also notice how every color is extremely well represented in that same top 8?
White in Miracles and UWR.
Green in RUG and BUG (Delver and Shardless).
Black in BUG (Delver and Shardless).
Red in RUG, UWR, and of course Burn.
If you include the 9-16th place, the ratio of nonblue cards increases even more.
(If I had time, I would count the mana symbols in each color on all cards in that top 16, just to show that the Legacy color wheel is fine.)

It is interesting to note that all the best performing black cards are relatively new: Deathrite/Decay, Thoughseize, and Liliana were all printed in the last 7 years. At the other extreme we have Lightning Bolt which goes back all the way to the beginning of time, suggesting that Red might be in most need of a powerful new spell or two.

On the topic of building a succesful Brainstorm-hate deck (and really, a format with 7/8 decks in top 8 playing Brainstorm is a great excuse to try exactly that - and just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it's impossible) I very much agree with cab0747 that we need to include more than a single hatecard if that is ever going to work. Just throwing 4 random Chalice in a deck and then rage quitting the format because you don't get to resolve them on turn 1 every time you need them is sad.

Koby

08-11-2014, 12:44 PM

For completeness' sake, Merfolk Traders appeared in Weatherlight. There may be an earlier looting effect, but I can't think of any other than Bazaar of Baghdad.

As for making looting better, I think I'd rather have the discard as part of the cost in red so you can discard a land or something to draw gas. Would it be better as part of the effect where you discard, then draw? Yes, but that's probably too good for Legacy (imagine Faithless Looting like that in Burn) and way too good for Standard.

The entire slice of Red's looting is based on Wheel of Fortune. Being a slave to precedence and for the sake of not re-inventing the wheel, R&D decides to just stick with "discard, then draw" formula for the Red effects. It's consistent, but underwhelming compared to the flexibility that Blue seems to get in a variety of iterations.

btm10

08-11-2014, 01:01 PM

In the end this discussion is totally pointless. WotC stopped caring about the Legacy banlist long ago. In the highly hypothetical scenario they will start caring about it again, they will ask the opinion of high profile players. None, or very, of these people will suggest banning Brainstorm. (I'm not making an argument, this is simply reality)

I think that a fair number of high profile players would actually argue for a ban, because the SCG circuit has so many pros playing on it, and many pros dislike how different Legacy is from Standard. In other cases, prominent Eternal players (Brain Demars comes to mind) have suggested that Brainstorm should be banned. Demars qualified this right before Born of the Gods came out by saying that he thought Spirit of the Labyrinth would be enough to hose it and make things better, but I'm not sure what his current feelings are. So it's by no means an open-and-shut case that if prominent players were polled, Brainstorm would stay. I'm not in favor of banning it, I'm just pointing this out.

The entire slice of Red's looting is based on Wheel of Fortune. Being a slave to precedence and for the sake of not re-inventing the wheel, R&D decides to just stick with "discard, then draw" formula for the Red effects. It's consistent, but underwhelming compared to the flexibility that Blue seems to get in a variety of iterations.

The issue is that they didn't stick with the Wheel precedent and instead went with Merfolk Looter's sequence of events. If they had stuck with Discard first, then draw (both halves being part of the effect) Faithless Looting would be among the best cards for Burn or nonblue aggro ever printed, because it would just be "R, discard up to two excess lands, draw two cards." They could even make the draw contingent on having the cards to discard, which would actually be fairly skill testing ("Do I need this third Goblin Guide?" "Can I afford to throw away Mountain, Searing Blaze to try to hit Price of Progress and end the game now, or is the risk of hitting Lands or blockable creatures too high?").

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 01:12 PM

by saying that he thought Spirit of the Labyrinth would be enough to hose it and make things better.

This sounds like a man who's not allowed to have opinions.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 01:23 PM

@Btm.

Are you saying you feel that having to discard then draw would have made Looting better?

Edit:
fixing my phones helpful auto correct.

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 01:29 PM

btm10

08-11-2014, 02:15 PM

I think more along the lines of what he means (or at least what I hope he means) is that say Faithless Looting is the last card in your hand. Discard two cards then draw two cards leaves you with a net gain where ordinarily, with the current system, you'd be at a loss. It'd also be balls nuts for dredge on turn 1.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I assumed it was understood that in most cases Burn or conventional aggro decks would rather be spending their mana attacking your life total if they already had the cards to do it, but they frequently either run out of gas or flood out in the mid to late game, and frequently do both if they survive long enough.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 02:19 PM

Ok I get it. So it would be the same kind of cost as the Pacts "Pay X mana" clause. A cost involved in the resolution of the spell and not the casting of it. I don't mind that too much. It's better than making the discard part of the casting cost.

menace13

08-11-2014, 02:31 PM

HSCK

08-11-2014, 02:41 PM

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 02:46 PM

Sneak and Show is not ANT.

God damn. I've been doing it wrong the whole time!

menace13

08-11-2014, 02:48 PM

Because they're not the same, it's simple. Shardless BUG is not Miracles is not RUG Delver is not Sneak and Show is not ANT. Grouping them as one makes no sense. Oh, and the top 12 decks are still under 60% of all top 8s from November until now. Think about that for a second, can you find a time where there were more decks able to perform well?
Because theyre all playing Brainstorm, it's simple. Can you find a time where it was 70% Brainstorm in all placing decks? Think about that one for a minute.

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 02:53 PM

Because theyre all playing Brainstorm, it's simple. Can you find a time where it was 70% Brainstorm in all placing decks? Think about that one for a minute.

"It's never happened before" is not a great justification and has no bearing on the diversity of the format.

menace13

08-11-2014, 02:56 PM

"It's never happened before" is not a great justification and has no bearing on the diversity of the format.
It was a response to his "it never happened before that the top 12 decks are 60% of top 8s", so, yeah. And it kind of does have great bearing on the format, since you know, stats and history. But we can pretend like youre right if that makes you happy.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 03:05 PM

The mass inbreeding of the format really is an issue. It has never happened before is actually a really solid point. Because it hasn't happened before that so many decks ran the same core set of cards. 4x Brainstorm, 4x Force and 4x Ponder are actually so common these days that it's surprising to see decks that have access to these cards no run them.

It's kind of scary, all these decks are the same at the core. Come on guys, stop banging your cousins and play Painter or something.

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 03:19 PM

What was the percentage on Tarmogoyf?

menace13

08-11-2014, 03:21 PM

What was the percentage on Tarmogoyf?
At anytime? Or now? Was it ever as close to Brainstorm? Was there ever 28 goyfs in a top 8?

HSCK

08-11-2014, 03:25 PM

Because theyre all playing Brainstorm, it's simple. Can you find a time where it was 70% Brainstorm in all placing decks? Think about that one for a minute.

That doesn't make them the same at all. It's always been a poor argument that having Brainstorm makes them all the same.

menace13

08-11-2014, 03:30 PM

That doesn't make them the same at all. It's always been a poor argument that having Brainstorm makes them all the same.
Who says theyre all the same? Please quote where i said all those decks playing brainstorm are the same decks? Dont worry, Ill wait..

What i did and continue to say is. That the field has never been more saturated by blue decks that play one card than ever before. It has increased since 2010. At that point Brainstorm was only at 50%.

Legacy has been in a brainstorm dominated state for too long. It needs to go. Was misstep at 70% or more? Was there ever a card- including Misstep- that represented those kinds of numbers? What happens when they do?

HSCK

08-11-2014, 03:34 PM

For all this talk of diversity it just isn't really true. Why would anyone need to see the most 20 played decks when the top 8 will be 6/8 on a good non blue day? By that it means play Brainstorm or be the one deck in a top 8 that got there. Brainstorm is nearing Ancestral Recall percentages. Which is around 75%

If they're not the same it means there is diversity, unless you're saying they are the same. Not sure how you can have it both ways here while trying to use the word diversity.

HrishiQQ

08-11-2014, 03:34 PM

I was about to ask the same question. What was the % of Mental Missteps in the top 8? Was it this high?

menace13

08-11-2014, 03:37 PM

If they're not the same it means there is diversity, unless you're saying they are the same. Not sure how you can have it both ways here while trying to use the word diversity.
Diversity the state of being diverse; variety. Yes, that means all the decks are different in some way. Yes, that also means that they all share Brainstorms. The message is loud and clear in legacy. Play it or gtfo. If it were truly diverse wouldnt brainstorm percentages be lower? Or by your definition of diverse we can come to the conclusion that blue decks = diverse.

HrishiQQ

08-11-2014, 03:42 PM

If they're not the same it means there is diversity, unless you're saying they are the same. Not sure how you can have it both ways here while trying to use the word diversity.

Well, I suppose RUG Delver, BUG Delver and UWR Delver are technically not the same. That's not the sort of diversity I was hoping for, though.

http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=3&start_date=08/09/2014&end_date=08/10/2014&start=1&finish=16&city=Syracuse

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 03:47 PM

Well, I suppose RUG Delver, BUG Delver and UWR Delver are technically not the same. That's not the sort of diversity I was hoping for, though.

http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=3&start_date=08/09/2014&end_date=08/10/2014&start=1&finish=16&city=Syracuse

... he said completely ignoring that Burn also made the top 8 and that there was Mono-Red Sneak Attack (what the fuck) and Maverick and Feline with High Tide in the top 16.

I mean, I know there's still a certain amount of prestige that comes with a top 8, but c'mon. Expanding it to a top 16 makes that list look smashingly gorgeous.

HSCK

08-11-2014, 03:48 PM

Diversity the state of being diverse; variety. Yes, that means all the decks are different in some way. Yes, that also means that they all share Brainstorms. The message is loud and clear in legacy. Play it or gtfo. If it were truly diverse wouldnt brainstorm percentages be lower? Or by your definition of diverse we can come to the conclusion that blue decks = diverse.

If the decks are doing different things then I see it as diverse, I'm not sure why I wouldn't. Delver decks aren't all the same, and they are worlds different than Miracles, Shardless, and variations of Storm, so from the standpoint of different strategies there's a lot of diversity. Jund, Death and Taxes, and Elves are all in the same percentages of the other top tier decks except Team America and Miracles, who together make up a whopping 14% of the top 8 meta. Arsenal's data showed that Jund and RUG took up a crazy 40%+ of the meta before TNN's printing. There are more rogue decks doing well today than perhaps ever, so I don't really see a problem.

If you want to make the argument having Brainstorm kills diversity from a color perspective then it makes sense for sure, but from the standpoint of lots of different things being done I don't think that argument holds a lot of water.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 03:59 PM

At anytime? Or now? Was it ever as close to Brainstorm? Was there ever 28 goyfs in a top 8?

Quick look found this:
http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=2668&d=217253&f=LE

If you go back to the time RUG and Jund where the two aces in the format, I am sure you will find a top 8 with a spread of Goyf somewhere.

menace13

08-11-2014, 04:02 PM

If you want to make the argument having Brainstorm kills diversity from a color perspective then it makes sense for sure, but from the standpoint of lots of different things being done I don't think that argument holds a lot of water.
And I fully agree with that. I would like to see it not be one card omnipresent at such a high rate. It's over saturation that I don't like. And I love brainstorm and blue decks. That's all I would ever play. But it's not MY format. We kind of have to share this game with others and they might not love Brainstorms as much as I do. And I feel in Legacy there should be more color balance than any other format. At least historically it was true in the past. At this point it's too late to print other cards that Brainstorm playing decks wont assimilate and turn it into their weapon. The best deck for an uncounterable removal spell is a blue deck. Same for any other of the most played Legacy cards.

Quick look found this:
http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=2668&d=217253&f=LE

If you go back to the time RUG and Jund where the two aces in the format, I am sure you will find a top 8 with a spread of Goyf somewhere.

Yikes. That top 8 0o. Still more Brainstorms though :tongue:

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 04:03 PM

Quick look found this:
http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=2668&d=217253&f=LE

If you go back to the time RUG and Jund where the two aces in the format, I am sure you will find a top 8 with a spread of Goyf somewhere.

Pretty much more and more of this with any quick Google search. Five to six out of eight was the regular up until just a few years ago. Which, get this, is the same as the record breaking 70% you guys are yelling about right now.

menace13

08-11-2014, 04:09 PM

Pretty much more and more of this with any quick Google search. Five to six out of eight was the regular up until just a few years ago. Which, get this, is the same as the record breaking 70% you guys are yelling about right now.
last 2 months. http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE 67%

2013 http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=80 64%

2012 http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=6 62%

2011 http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=61 52%

Any trends there?

LOLWut

08-11-2014, 04:12 PM

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 04:16 PM

last 2 months. http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE 67%

2013 http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=80 64%

2012 http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=6 62%

2011 http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=61 52%

Any trends there?

And Tarmogoyf has literally been putting up the exact name numbers from its release until just recently. That link was 2012. Five years. Get on Goyf's level.

menace13

08-11-2014, 04:16 PM

This is mostly talking out of asses until we get exhaustive data on decks' win percentage, representation in tournaments, and things like that, to see if decks with Brainstorm are basically objectively better, or if a lot of people just really like playing them and they get placings from sheer numbers.
Or that most people have identified that the best decks are blue? Or is it that everyone is just dumb and playing blue for no reason?

And Tarmogoyf has literally been putting up the exact name numbers from its release until just revently. That link was 2012. Five years. Get on Goyf's level.
Never been on Brainstorms level of numbers. Next.

Barook

08-11-2014, 04:20 PM

Quick look found this:
http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=2668&d=217253&f=LE

If you go back to the time RUG and Jund where the two aces in the format, I am sure you will find a top 8 with a spread of Goyf somewhere.
Jund didn't even really exist before DRS and AD. It placed first in the DtB section in January 2013.

As far as placing goes, Delver is the key point where everything went to hell by an immediate ~10% in in Brainstorm decks. Posting a Top 8 of the post-Delver era to show that blue was always that high is misleading and simply false.

http://www.mtgtop8.com/topcards

Go to the Legacy section and compare the the data between 2011 and 2012 - we went from 52.2% to 62.0% in Brainstorm decks. (I just wish the recent data since the beginning of this year didn't include MTGO results mixed with paper as it contaminates the data. The old data isn't touched by that.)

Edit:

This is mostly talking out of asses until we get exhaustive data on decks' win percentage, representation in tournaments, and things like that, to see if decks with Brainstorm are basically objectively better, or if a lot of people just really like playing them and they get placings from sheer numbers.
Maybe somebody can help me out - I'm still looking for the day 2 data of one the more recent big Legacy tournaments that had, iirc, 14 Brainstorm decks with 1 Painter in the Top 8 and 1 Elves deck in the Top 16. The data showed that the lower you went in rankings of the day 2 decks, the higher the number of non-blue decks became.

So no, it isn't a matter of sheer mass, it's a matter of Brainstorm outperforming other decks - hard.

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 04:26 PM

Never been on Brainstorms level of numbers. Next.

Except that, you know... It was. Choosing to not acknowledge it doesn't make it not fact.

menace13

08-11-2014, 04:29 PM

Except that, you know... It was. Choosing to not acknowledge it doesn't make it not fact.
Actually it wasn't. I linked you data sets from 2011 to now it never peaked over 35%. Maybe you have links to when it was 50-67%?

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 04:31 PM

He literally just posted a link to a 62%.

Hof

08-11-2014, 04:36 PM

Or by your definition of diverse we can come to the conclusion that blue decks = diverse.
So by your definition decks that contain Brainstorm are "blue"... I disagree.

The way that I see it, there is exactly 1 blue deck in the top 16 of the event in question (High Tide).
Then there is 1 two-color deck, 10 three-color decks, 2 four-color decks, and 2 monored decks.

This is the combined Syracuse top 16 color distribution (pasting all the decks into tappedout.net):
http://i.imgur.com/RIBdgjZ.png

menace13

08-11-2014, 04:37 PM

He literally just posted a link to a 62%.
In one top 8? in which Brainstorm still outnumbered it? and in which for that year in total goyf didnt get near the level of total brainstorms? do u even read, bro?

So by your definition decks that contain Brainstorm are "blue"... I disagree.

The way that I see it, there is exactly 1 blue deck in the top 16 of the event in question (High Tide).
Then there is 1 two-color deck, 10 three-color decks, 2 four-color decks, and 2 monored decks.

This is the combined Syracuse top 16 color distribution (pasting all the decks into tappedout.net):

Theyre not fully blue. They just have the majority of their spells in blue.

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.
Oh shit! me and dci agreed on those decks being blue? Shocker!!

Lt. Quattro

08-11-2014, 04:40 PM

I was about to ask the same question. What was the % of Mental Missteps in the top 8? Was it this high?

Here are the last 10 scg opens while mental misstep was legal.

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/3015#38988
11 Sep 2011
23/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2603#32546
21 Aug 2011
25/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2534#31291
14 Aug 2011
14/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2288#27559
31 Jul 2011
16/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2174#26038
24 Jul 2011
27/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2059#24356
18 Jul 2011
14/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1694#19182
26 Jun 2011
20/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1482#16366
12 Jun 2011
23/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1358#15016
5 Jun 2011
28/32

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1149#12925
22 May 2011
24/32

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/161b

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

rlesko

08-11-2014, 04:48 PM

So, can someone who is in favor of banning brainstorm explain one thing to me? Is it the raw number of brainstorms which irks you guys, or something else? For full disclosure, please also say what your most played deck in legacy is.

Barook

08-11-2014, 05:07 PM

That are some pretty interesting numbers, Quattro. I've also looked up the number of blue decks (which have a blue core with Daze, Fow, all that jazz) from those Top 8s.

Here are the last 10 scg opens while mental misstep was legal.

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/3015#38988
11 Sep 2011
23/32
Brainstorm: 16/32
Blue decks: 6/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2603#32546
21 Aug 2011
25/32
Brainstorm: 28/32
Blue decks: 7/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2534#31291
14 Aug 2011
14/32
Brainstorm: 20/32
Blue decks: 5/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2288#27559
31 Jul 2011
16/32
Brainstorm: 12/32
Blue decks: 4/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2174#26038
24 Jul 2011
27/32
Brainstorm: 24/32
Blue decks: 6/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/2059#24356
18 Jul 2011
14/32
Brainstorm: 16/32
Blue decks: 3/8 (that Zoo deck on #1 isn't really blue, but ran Misstep, so 4 MM decks)

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1694#19182
26 Jun 2011
20/32
Brainstorm: 16/32
Blue decks: 5/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1482#16366
12 Jun 2011
23/32
Brainstorm: 24/32
Blue decks: 8/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1358#15016
5 Jun 2011
28/32
Brainstorm: 26/32
Blue decks: 8/8

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/1149#12925
22 May 2011
24/32
Brainstorm: 20/32
Blue decks: 6/8

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

Now it would be interesting to do the same thing with the latest 10 SCG events.

Edit: Done

http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t[C1]=3&start_date=08/09/2014&end_date=08/10/2014&start=1&finish=16&city=Syracuse
10/08/14
Brainstorm: 28/32
Blue decks: 7/8

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=7959&d=245815&f=LE
03/08/14
Brainstorm: 28/32
Blue decks: 7/8

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=7916&f=LE
27/07/14
Brainstorm: 16/32
Blue decks: 4/8

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=7851&f=LE
20/07/14
Brainstorm: 28/32
Blue decks: 7/8

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=7755&f=LE
06/07/14
Brainstorm: 20/32
Blue decks: 5/8

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=7714&f=LE
29/06/14
Brainstorm: 20/32
Blue decks: 5/8

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=7659&f=LE
22/06/14
Brainstorm: 12/32
Blue decks: 3/8

http://www.metagame.it/liste-mazzi-legacy/1563-legacy-top-16-scg-open-columbus.html
15/06/14
Brainstorm: 28/32
Blue decks: 7/8
(Bonus points for the flawless 32/32 BS Invitational Top 8)

http://www.metagame.it/liste-mazzi-legacy/1552-legacy-top-16-scg-open-providence.html
08/06/14
Brainstorm: 20/32
Blue decks: 5/8

http://www.metagame.it/liste-mazzi-legacy/1544-legacy-top-16-scg-open-indianapolis.html
01/06/14
Brainstorm: 20/32
Blue decks: 5/8

Jon

08-11-2014, 05:53 PM

So by your definition decks that contain Brainstorm are "blue"... I disagree.

Try to play one of those decks without Brainstorm / Ponder and let me know how it works out for you.

iamajellydonut

08-11-2014, 06:12 PM

Try to play one of those decks without Brainstorm / Ponder and let me know how it works out for you.

This is a fair point, but I think what he was getting at, or at least what I'm getting at is that these decks are unfairly classified more as FUKKENBLUE/black/green.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 06:20 PM

It's a fair call to point out they are blue. I mean you can say that a deck like Team America is 3 colours, but the spread is 1/3 Land, 1/3 Blue and 1/3 GB. As you look across the field that doesn't change. RUG has at most 6 red cards main, Sneak and show is prominently Blue... I mean we can go on, but when it comes down to it, only corner cases are different. Decks like ANT, TES, Dredge and to a limited extent Elves. Almost everything is is Blue first, whatever we are splashing for second.

bakofried

08-11-2014, 06:22 PM

The problem here is that if we shift the argument to "why aren't the non blue color combinations placing?" We will be told that such a question is irrelevant.

You can't say "I don't see blue, I see color combinations" when the non blue color combinations aren't represented. Where is GRW, WRB, BGW, RGB, and RGWB? If the argument is about multicolor decks, make it about multicolor decks. You don't get to engage in this bullshit sophistry.

Also, yes, the numbers piss me off. The norm for Brainstorm is 24+ copies in the top 8. If your deck is so poorly built that without one cantrip it wouldn't exist, that sounds like a shitty deck.*

*Storm players excused, y'all need some love. Mystical Tutor anyone?

Bed Decks Palyer

08-11-2014, 06:44 PM

Where is GRW, WRB, BGW, RGB, and RGWB?
You mean aka, blaka, drega, nerka and ramba?

Also, yes, the numbers piss me off. The norm for Brainstorm is 24+ copies in the top 8. If your deck is so poorly built that without one cantrip it wouldn't exist, that sounds like a shitty deck.*
This ain't just. Thankfully I know you were making a joke, but still...
Those decks are good. They place and they have solid game plan and execute it pretty well. Is it due to Brainstorm? Yes, it is. But is it a sign of bad deck building? Idk, for me it looks quite the opposite, as the decks work, and they fare somehow well even against the decks designed to defeat them, maybe not against Pox, but they definitely can win against DnT or any Chalice Stompy.

I'm not sure if twenty+ years of MtG design, MtG design faults and whatever else can be easily undone. It didn't happen not even in Modern, and that's a bit more flat format without many of the ghosts of the past. The color parity/equilibrium won't happen, I can't imagine that. The very color pie and all the flavour-stuff prevents this from happening, as any deck that cannot interact on stack (and remember, blue is about interaction, all other just stare) has hard times in Legacy.
Standard, limited, those can be color-balanced, but no Eternal format ever. Unless they'd unban/print some seriously broken cards like Wheel of Fortune. I'm not sure I want to play in such a format, though, as it may be too broken, even more than T1, and of course, the price tags will be insane. Imagine e.g. the mentioned Wheel as a four of, I guess it would go through the roof. (Well... and maybe not, see Land Tax.)

Speaking of color balance: something like SotF could return it back. True?

edit: And on the RGWB: there was thread dedicated to a decline of four-color Loam, but it went pretty crazy pretty fast... :rolleyes:

blackheartz

08-11-2014, 06:47 PM

blackheartz

08-11-2014, 06:54 PM

I'm not sure if twenty+ years of MtG design, MtG design faults and whatever else can be easily undone. It didn't happen not even in Modern, and that's a bit more flat format without many of the ghosts of the past. The color parity/equilibrium won't happen, I can't imagine that. The very color pie and all the flavour-stuff prevents this from happening, as any deck that cannot interact on stack (and remember, blue is about interaction, all other just stare) has hard times in Legacy.
Standard, limited, those can be color-balanced, but no Eternal format ever. Unless they'd unban/print some seriously broken cards like Wheel of Fortune. I'm not sure I want to play in such a format, though, as it may be too broken, even more than T1, and of course, the price tags will be insane. Imagine e.g. the mentioned Wheel as a four of, I guess it would go through the roof. (Well... and maybe not, see Land Tax.)

Speaking of color balance: something like SotF could return it back. True?

Not really. UG and UGx Survival would make up something like 90% of the Survival decks. But it would add another viable deck in the format.

And it is true that Legacy will always be a blue-centric format. Many different decks(and all archetypes) available and viable but a quite unequal color split.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 06:54 PM

I understand that, it is one of the reasons I cut a Force to the side when I play TA. But that doesn't stop the deck from being a even split blue, lands, the rest most of the time. A trend that continues as you look at other decks.

I mean have a look at the land bases. Work out what percentage of productive lands tap for what percentage of the decks colours. That shows you how important each colour is in the deck. If you look across the Delver lines you see all the lands in RUG and Patriot tap for Blue and in TA, a more even spread with a whopping 2 lands that are used for mana not tapping for Blue. Honestly, they are blue decks.

Richard Cheese

08-11-2014, 07:01 PM

I understand that, it is one of the reasons I cut a Force to the side when I play TA. But that doesn't stop the deck from being a even split blue, lands, the rest most of the time. A trend that continues as you look at other decks.

I mean have a look at the land bases. Work out what percentage of productive lands tap for what percentage of the decks colours. That shows you how important each colour is in the deck. If you look across the Delver lines you see all the lands in RUG and Patriot tap for Blue and in TA, a more even spread with a whopping 2 lands tat are used for mana not tapping for Blue. Honestly, they are blue decks.

Except that Daze provides a pretty big incentive to make sure most/all of your lands are Islands.

Dice_Box

08-11-2014, 07:03 PM

In the age of the fetchland, I disagree.

btm10

08-11-2014, 07:16 PM

For the decks that run FoW you have to take into account that they need a certain density of blue spells to keep it functional.

This is very true. You can't splash blue for Force of Will, you have to commit at least a quarter of your deck to cards that are actually blue, not counting the Islands or blue duals you add to support the other blue spells.

Lt. Quattro

08-11-2014, 07:41 PM

Not really. UG and UGx Survival would make up something like 90% of the Survival decks. But it would add another viable deck in the format.

And it is true that Legacy will always be a blue-centric format. Many different decks(and all archetypes) available and viable but a quite unequal color split.

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/317#2576
SCG Richmond, 5 Dec 2010, 179 players
2/4 non blue survival* (I did not consider playing a copy of wonder as blue)

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/291#2431
Dutch Eternal Championships, 14 Nov 2010, 207 players
1/1 non blue survival

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/327#2634
Jupiter Games, 13 Nov 2010, 138 players
1/2 non blue survival

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/273#2330
SCG Boston, 7 Nov 2010, 218 players
1/4 non blue survival

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/255#2109
GP Bochum Side Event, 31 Oct 2010, 180 players
1/2 non blue survival* (This event only shows top 4)

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/254#2091
SCG Charlotte, 31 Oct 2010, 147 players
3/5 non blue survival

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/241#1991
SCG Nashville, 17 Oct 2010, 175 players
2/4 non blue survival

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/249#2053
Eternal Weekend 2010 Madrid, 10 Oct 2010, 293 players
2/2 non blue survival* (one deck had 3 spell pierce in the side)

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/277#2360
Black Lotus Tournament Jupiter Games, 9 Oct 2010, 116 players
2/4 non blue survival* (again a wonder in the main)

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/187#1529
SCG Open Baltimore Legacy, 19 Sep 2010, 233 players
1/3 non blue survival

So about 50% of the survival decks that did make top 8 were non blue (:wg:/ooze combo). What makes you say that if survival would be legal today, most would be blue?

Koby

08-11-2014, 08:55 PM

blackheartz

08-11-2014, 09:21 PM

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/317#2576

So about 50% of the survival decks that did make top 8 were non blue (:wg:/ooze combo). What makes you say that if survival would be legal today, most would be blue?

I do not think that GW Survival will be as predominant after the meta adapts with today's standards. But that is just my estimation. Even if I am wrong though, the split between the different variations is closer to 50-50 (with blue/without blue) still it will not help to tip the color balance away from blue, which is what the post that I replied to was asking.

btm10

08-11-2014, 09:49 PM

Who remembers when Legacy as a community asked what the lowest # of blue cards you had to play to use Force of Will effectively?

Who remembers the exact 18 cards?

That's when the problem started with Brainstorm + FoW. I think Brainstorm is the card to remove from the set in order to maintain some effort of deck building. I will be sad, but the card is busted good.

I don't think that -4 Brainstorm, +4 Preordain (in most decks, and just for the sake of argument now) requires much effort. And here's where I keep getting confused: does anyone who thinks banning Brainstorm is desirable really think that it's going to reduce the number of people running decks with Force of Will by more than 5%? Banning a card that provides strategic diversity and reduces variance alongside all of its other virtues (separates good and bad players, enables tempo strategies, allows Storm decks to exist, etc.) seems like a very high cost for the possibility (and only the possibility) that some Junk (or other blue-less) deck can become more competitive. HSCK has pointed out dozens of times now that the meta is as diverse as it's ever been, and while many of these decks are running Brainstorm, they are all ultimately doing different things. Even the Delver strategies are noticeably different, ranging from almost an aggro deck (RUG) to a seamless tempo-midrange deck (BUG), with a clunky tempo-midrange deck in between (UWR). Hamstring those three decks and you'll get what, a single deck that doesn't run blue and already exists, a worse version of RUG Delver, and a BUG midrange deck that already exists and is probably underplayed? I don't see us gaining anything from that exchange.

HSCK

08-11-2014, 10:32 PM

I don't think that -4 Brainstorm, +4 Preordain (in most decks, and just for the sake of argument now) requires much effort. And here's where I keep getting confused: does anyone who thinks banning Brainstorm is desirable really think that it's going to reduce the number of people running decks with Force of Will by more than 5%? Banning a card that provides strategic diversity and reduces variance alongside all of its other virtues (separates good and bad players, enables tempo strategies, allows Storm decks to exist, etc.) seems like a very high cost for the possibility (and only the possibility) that some Junk (or other blue-less) deck can become more competitive. HSCK has pointed out dozens of times now that the meta is as diverse as it's ever been, and while many of these decks are running Brainstorm, they are all ultimately doing different things. Even the Delver strategies are noticeably different, ranging from almost an aggro deck (RUG) to a seamless tempo-midrange deck (BUG), with a clunky tempo-midrange deck in between (UWR). Hamstring those three decks and you'll get what, a single deck that doesn't run blue and already exists, a worse version of RUG Delver, and a BUG midrange deck that already exists and is probably underplayed? I don't see us gaining anything from that exchange.

People are now using diversity to refer to color I guess, not strategic.

JeffHoogland

08-12-2014, 12:26 AM

I'm not going to discuss the actual points here - they are opinions and changing people's opinions is difficult to impossible at best.

What I am going to point out is where the author is flat out wrong based on actual data. He claims my data:

One of the main problems with Legacy at the moment is the egocentrism that the North American Legacy Circuit, mainly the SCG Open Circuit, IS the Legacy format, which is one of the biggest mistakes in assessing the health of the format at large

It isn't just the SCG circuit that is dominated by brainstorm though. Bazaar of Moxen 2014? 50% of the top 8 lists feature 4x brainstorm. GP Paris 2014? 87.5% of the top 16 lists (14/16) feature brainstorm.

Brainstorm isn't just over represented in the US. It is over represented in legacy as a whole. If there are other 9+ round legacy events that have been occurring in Europe on a regular basis where the top 8 isn't 50+% brainstorm decks consistently - please link me to them.

In my personal experience, people who aren't playing blue in legacy either have a pet deck they love (see me playing Loam for forever) or they simply can't afford the blue duals they need to play a tier 1 decklist.

All in all, people who love legacy, are going to keep loving legacy. Most of them love casting brainstorm and there is nothing wrong with that. If legacy is a format full of people casting brainstorm, who like casting brainstorm that is great. They do not care if that is the best option in the format, because it is the option they love.

The point of my article wasn't to try and get other people to stop playing legacy. It was simply to share why I feel frustrated with it at a competitive level. I think legacy offers some fantastic, deep games. It just also offers some very shallow, uninteresting ones as well. Because of this I personally feel this makes it a worse format than Standard/Modern for high level magic. This isn't a declaration of war, just my personal feelings.

Bazaar 2014 Lists (http://www.bazaar-of-moxen.com/en/bazaar-of-moxen-coverage-bom9,24/bom9-legacy-main-event,c147.html)
GP Paris Lists (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome)

iamajellydonut

08-12-2014, 12:31 AM

I don't get it. Is the joke that Loam won Bazaar of Moxen 2014?

JeffHoogland

08-12-2014, 12:45 AM

-from Hooglands article

Hahaha...

I've seen a few matches with Hoogland playing 4c Loam. I recall great plays like:

Opponent tapped out with lots of Angel tokens on table and Force of Will in hand, Hoogland with Thalia in play and Devasting Dreams in hand. A DD for 4 would have cleared the opponents table and won Hoogland the game. Instead of winning the game Hoogland sends Thalia to battle, which gets blocked and dies, and plays DD secound main phase. The DD gets FOW'ed.

Hoogland didn't lose to Force of Will, he lost all by himself.

I've seen him play Thoughtseize into his own Chalice of the Void on several occasions, and I don't belive that to be optimal play :tongue: Good thing, he could still make that particular play in Modern :laugh:

You know what context you don't have from this particular match? The fact that it was my 22nd round of magic I had played in the last 36 hours. I played an 11 round standard open the day before, nine swiss rounds of legacy that same day, and this was the semi-finals of the top 8.

The icing on the cake? We just cash split the top 4 and were only playing for a meaningless trophy at that point.

So yes, like any human, I've made play mistakes.

~Jeff

JeffHoogland

08-12-2014, 12:47 AM

I don't get it. Is the joke that Loam won Bazaar of Moxen 2014?

The joke is that you and so many others much a pile of weight into a deck taking first, while being dismissive of the total number of other things at the top of the field.

Anything can run hot at the end of the day and win an 8 man.

~Jeff

iamajellydonut

08-12-2014, 01:00 AM

The joke is that you and so many others much a pile of weight into a deck taking first, while being dismissive of the total number of other things at the top of the field.

I mean, c'mon, it is pretty comical. Loam wins BoM and you throw a hissy fit about your pet deck not being able to perform well. It's funny, guy!

Anyway, you're going to throw your pile of monkey feces. We're going to throw our pile of monkey feces. I can point out all I like that expanding the results as you so requested gives us only one blue deck in the top four, but I know it won't sway you. All I can do is find solace in the fact that I still find Legacy to be utterly enjoyable and rest easy knowing that, for one reason or another, Brainstorm isn't going anywhere any time soon.

JeffHoogland

08-12-2014, 01:17 AM

I mean, c'mon, it is pretty comical. Loam wins BoM and you throw a hissy fit about your pet deck not being able to perform well. It's funny, guy!

One finish, from one person, in one event doesn't show anything about performing well consistently. Are there other 9+ round events somewhere this deck list has been consistently putting up other finishes at?

Use actual data. Don't just tell me I'm wrong because you do not like what I have to say.

~Jeff

CabalTherapy

08-12-2014, 01:31 AM

The icing on the cake? We just cash split the top 4 and were only playing for a meaningless trophy at that point.

So the trophy was meaningless. Hmm... Not sure why I am disappointed by this statement. Maybe it's because trophies always mean something, and everybody thinks about the money.

I just don't understand the overall problem here. Brainstorm was there, is there and will be there and I don't think we should spend more than few lines about a raging Loam guy. Seriously.

LOLWut

08-12-2014, 01:32 AM

Just because Aggro Loam is a mediocre deck doesn't mean that all decks without blue are mediocre. Even if it wasn't mediocre, how could it place consistently with hardly anyone playing it? Check the data on Elves, D&T, Burn, and Jund performing well consistently.

By the way, Jeff, how many times have you played something other than Aggro Loam at a large Legacy tournament in the last few years? Ya know, to adjust, and see how other decks fare.

JeffHoogland

08-12-2014, 02:10 AM

I played Deadguy ale for 3~ opens at the start of the year. Played Elves at another. I'll likely be playing Brainstorms in somerset here soon.

~Jeff

Megadeus

08-12-2014, 02:26 AM

Maybe it's because I play similar decks as Jeff (my last two being Loam and Dead guy), but I agree with his statements here. Sure, you CAN win with something else, but you're hurting your chances if you aren't brainstorming. Despite a few outlier top eights, it has generally been around 75% penetration of the top placings for brainstorm. I still enjoy the format despite this, but I can see how one could be fed up with it from a competitive standpoint.

evanmartyr

08-12-2014, 03:10 AM

I've read through most of the thread, and I'm highly confused about what people actually are arguing about.

Argument 1: The inclusion of Brainstorm does not increase consistency and power enough to overly impact your performance against non-Brainstorm decks. This does not appear to be true. Week in and out, I see tons of new tweaks on old decks, mostly trying to attack the decks that Brainstorm enables and supports, appear in top 8s and top 16s...and those decks (not running Brainstorm) are consistently outnumbered by decks running a full 4x of Brainstorm. So I think it's fair to say that whether you play Brainstorm or not, all other things being equal, is the most important factor determining how well you can do on a consistent basis.

Argument 2: Legacy is defined by such cards/plays. It is, currently. It hasn't always been. Banning Brainstorm would have insanely far-reaching and format-warping effects, and I for one don't really want to see that happen. I like that Miracles is a thing, and I like that there's huge impetus to find ways to specifically attack a "core" strategy that appears in many, many decks. We recently saw printed an aggressively costed creature that hoses the crap out of Brainstorm, and as far as I can tell no-one's playing it...in general, I feel like because it's so elegantly tactical, a lot of players give up on trying to deal with it and instead switch to other formats or just give up and play RUG delver because fuck it, it's just too much work.

Maybe we're arguing about both of those things and then some, but I really can't decide myself. I love how Brainstorm enables and protects, all while doing the one thing you expect of an instant costing U (reduce variance), and does so so well almost entirely because of synergies that exist within the caster's deck, not because the card itself is just insane in a vacuum...but I hate how that power level is so easily slotted into anything and everything with no opportunity cost whatsoever.

Barook

08-12-2014, 03:24 AM

Check the data on Elves, D&T, Burn, and Jund performing well consistently.
Except they don't place consistently - the only consistent thing about them is jumping in and out of the DtB section on a regular basis while it, for example, took RUG Delver years to leave the DtB section for two short breaks this year.

And Burn is a real deck now, just not a DtB.

Zombie

08-12-2014, 03:32 AM

I feel like because it's so elegantly tactical

/me adds a box to Brainstorm Bingo, checks box.

You could say that for Ancestral Recall too. The words you're looking for are things like "undercosted", "instant" and "broken".

nevilshute

08-12-2014, 05:03 AM

I'm not going to discuss the actual points here - they are opinions and changing people's opinions is difficult to impossible at best.

What I am going to point out is where the author is flat out wrong based on actual data. He claims my data:

It isn't just the SCG circuit that is dominated by brainstorm though. Bazaar of Moxen 2014? 50% of the top 8 lists feature 4x brainstorm. GP Paris 2014? 87.5% of the top 16 lists (14/16) feature brainstorm.

Brainstorm isn't just over represented in the US. It is over represented in legacy as a whole. If there are other 9+ round legacy events that have been occurring in Europe on a regular basis where the top 8 isn't 50+% brainstorm decks consistently - please link me to them.

In my personal experience, people who aren't playing blue in legacy either have a pet deck they love (see me playing Loam for forever) or they simply can't afford the blue duals they need to play a tier 1 decklist.

All in all, people who love legacy, are going to keep loving legacy. Most of them love casting brainstorm and there is nothing wrong with that. If legacy is a format full of people casting brainstorm, who like casting brainstorm that is great. They do not care if that is the best option in the format, because it is the option they love.

The point of my article wasn't to try and get other people to stop playing legacy. It was simply to share why I feel frustrated with it at a competitive level. I think legacy offers some fantastic, deep games. It just also offers some very shallow, uninteresting ones as well. Because of this I personally feel this makes it a worse format than Standard/Modern for high level magic. This isn't a declaration of war, just my personal feelings.

Bazaar 2014 Lists (http://www.bazaar-of-moxen.com/en/bazaar-of-moxen-coverage-bom9,24/bom9-legacy-main-event,c147.html)
GP Paris Lists (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gppar14/welcome)

Sorry to cherry pick here. But the statement in bold I just flat out disagree with. Death and Taxes and Elves are two very good decks that continue to do very well in the hands of skilled players. That might not take much away from the rest of what you are trying to say but I think putting it like you did, twists the truth to fit your argument.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-12-2014, 05:17 AM

You know what context you don't have from this particular match? The fact that it was my 22nd round of magic I had played in the last 36 hours. I played an 11 round standard open the day before, nine swiss rounds of legacy that same day, and this was the semi-finals of the top 8.

The icing on the cake? We just cash split the top 4 and were only playing for a meaningless trophy at that point.

So yes, like any human, I've made play mistakes.

~Jeff

http://allsteelefitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Well-done-old-chap.jpg

Hi Jeff. I feel your pain, I played a lot of RGx Loam in both Extended and Legacy, and I loved the deck. Frankly, it isn't Tier1 anymore (I'm not sure if it ever was in Legacy, but it definitely was very close to being a top deck), and all the words "play what you like" are true, but it gets pretty old pretty fast once one starts to lose because of inconsistency issues.

menace13

08-12-2014, 06:20 AM

DCI are now using diversity to refer to color I guess, not strategic.
FTFY.

That is actually what the DCI used as reasoning for banning of Misstep. Saturation and blue color dominance.

Barook

08-12-2014, 06:53 AM

FTFY.

That is actually what the DCI used as reasoning for banning of Misstep. Saturation and blue color dominance.
And yet they let Brainstorm continue to dominate the format.

73% Misstep decks vs 69% Brainstorm decks isn't that much different from each other, especially considering that the average number of Brainstorms per deck is even slightly higher from the sample size showcased earlier.

HSCK

08-12-2014, 07:42 AM

So what if they just changed their mind? Misstep also killed strategic diversity, something that this format has.

menace13

08-12-2014, 08:12 AM

So what if they just changed their mind? Misstep also killed strategic diversity, something that this format has.
How did it kill diversity if all blue decks were placing? Like it is now.

M+1

08-12-2014, 08:45 AM

Many players hated Mental Misstep. Even more players love Brainstorm. They care about that, too.

menace13

08-12-2014, 08:51 AM

Many players hated Mental Misstep. Even more players love Brainstorm. They care about that, too.
How do you know many hated Misstep? And how many love Brainstorm? I mean, is there some sort of strawpoll?

Julian23

08-12-2014, 09:10 AM

How did it kill diversity if all blue decks were placing? Like it is now.

You are confusing strategic diversity with colour diversity.

To me, arguing solely based on pure colour diversity is not far form arguing for collectors number diversity.

M+1

08-12-2014, 09:19 AM

How do you know many hated Misstep?
Were you not around?

menace13

08-12-2014, 09:20 AM

You are confusing strategic diversity with colour diversity.

To me, arguing solely based on pure colour diversity is not far form arguing for collectors number diversity.
Umm. Not really. But, ok.

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep,there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

Were you not around?

For the strawpoll? or the brainstorm threads? Or the misstep threads? In order. No, yes, yes.

sjmcc13

08-12-2014, 09:54 AM

It isn't just the SCG circuit that is dominated by brainstorm though. Bazaar of Moxen 2014? 50% of the top 8 lists feature 4x brainstorm. In a format that is dominiated by 3+ color decks 50% is actually bellow expectations, 60% is where it should be at in a 3+ color format.

Which is one of the problems with all these arguments, 70% vs 20% is huge, 70% vs 60% is no where near as big a problem, and could be accounted for by player preference alone.

Julian23

08-12-2014, 10:22 AM

Umm. Not really. But, ok.

What a weak way to say "Yeah, I guess you are right, I have nothing to add."

Or rather...What a convenient way to avoid an argument.

menace13

08-12-2014, 10:37 AM

What a weak way to say "Yeah, I guess you are right, I have nothing to add."

Or rather...What a convenient way to avoid an argument.
Umm, again. No, not really, but, ok.

Acting like your argument had tons of merit, Julian? Is this an even weaker way of being passive aggressive upset at me for getting so easily dismissed? i mean, if you wanted to have an argument you would have looked at the DCI quote. Which actually says the opposite of how you felt. But if you just want to say trollish shit and get hurt when you get out trolled back. Then by all means yes it was a weak way to say youre wrong. But I felt that the DCI quote was something you could hold on to.

JeffHoogland

08-12-2014, 10:51 AM

In a format that is dominiated by 3+ color decks 50% is actually bellow expectations, 60% is where it should be at in a 3+ color format.

Which is one of the problems with all these arguments, 70% vs 20% is huge, 70% vs 60% is no where near as big a problem, and could be accounted for by player preference alone.

OK. So one event - where byes can skew the top 8 (byes in a swiss event are bad) - had 50%. Lets pretend that isn't meaningful.

How about the larger, longer, GP with almost 90%?

~Jeff

HSCK

08-12-2014, 11:01 AM

Umm, again. No, not really, but, ok.

Acting like your argument had tons of merit, Julian? Is this an even weaker way of being passive aggressive upset at me for getting so easily dismissed? i mean, if you wanted to have an argument you would have looked at the DCI quote. Which actually says the opposite of how you felt. But if you just want to say trollish shit and get hurt when you get out trolled back. Then by all means yes it was a weak way to say youre wrong. But I felt that the DCI quote was something you could hold on to.

You just said last night you didn't think strategic diversity was a problem, and here you are today saying it is, I really don't get it.

The DCI has shown to change its mind on things, look at modern for example. There isn't an argument for the format being stale strategically that holds up over time. The same people that argued that I placed too much weight on GPs or Opens are now going back to that argument when they started with, "look at more tournaments worldwide." I have, since November, you're all welcome to go through them too and check what I post, but you'll see the same thing: a fragmentation of what decks are in elimination rounds that has grown steadily for the last 8 months.

Making the argument for color diversity is by extension grouping all decks with blue together, if you really want to argue that all the Delver variants are the same and in turn they are the same as ANT, Miracles, and Stoneblade, then be my guest, but I think you'll have a hard time arguing that too.

LOLWut

08-12-2014, 11:08 AM

Maybe somebody can help me out - I'm still looking for the day 2 data of one the more recent big Legacy tournaments that had, iirc, 14 Brainstorm decks with 1 Painter in the Top 8 and 1 Elves deck in the Top 16. The data showed that the lower you went in rankings of the day 2 decks, the higher the number of non-blue decks became.

So no, it isn't a matter of sheer mass, it's a matter of Brainstorm outperforming other decks - hard.

I'd like to see that as it would be one piece of the puzzle to figuring it out. However, that's just one way of analyzing the data, and it's just one tournament. Nothing conclusive either way.

Except they don't place consistently - the only consistent thing about them is jumping in and out of the DtB section on a regular basis while it, for example, took RUG Delver years to leave the DtB section for two short breaks this year.

If we dub a deck as "consistently placing" based on how it yo-yos in and out of the DtB section, we should look at how many times each archetype made it to the section, starting when the criteria were changed between the January and February '14 updates.

Team America 6
Miracles 5
Deathblade 4
Sneak & Show 4
Canadian Thresh 3
Death & Taxes 3
Elves 3
Jund 3
Patriot 3
Shardless BUG 3
ANT 2
Blade Control 1

If one's going to take issue with the claim that Death & Taxes, Elves, and Jund place consistently, one needs to also say that "blue decks" like Canadian Thresh, Patriot, and Shardless BUG don't place consistently, as they've yo-yoed the same number of times.

And, again, we need more data to see the exact reasons for higher numbers of placing, namely whether it's mostly number of entrants or win percentage.

Megadeus

08-12-2014, 11:25 AM

Sorry to cherry pick here. But the statement in bold I just flat out disagree with. Death and Taxes and Elves are two very good decks that continue to do very well in the hands of skilled players. That might not take much away from the rest of what you are trying to say but I think putting it like you did, twists the truth to fit your argument.

Even if this is true, that means that of all of the decks that can consistently place, only two of them are non blue.

evanmartyr

08-12-2014, 11:25 AM

/me adds a box to Brainstorm Bingo, checks box.

You could say that for Ancestral Recall too. The words you're looking for are things like "undercosted", "instant" and "broken".

No, Ancestral Recall is not tactically elegant. There's no decision-making involved in the resolution of Ancestral Recall. There's no synergy with specific cards in your own deck allowing you to get more or less mileage out of the effect. Ancestral Recall always digs you three cards deep, and puts you up two cards. That's all it does. The only possible decision you have, other than trying to land one under an opposing counterwall or something similar, is really just to make sure that casting it doesn't necessarily force you to discard.

Brainstorm on the other hand, enables strategies like Miracles. It can actively counter disruptive strategies and cards, like Thoughtsieze and Inquisition of Kozilek. It will let you see three cards deep, but can be a much more powerful filtering card with the addition of shuffle effects like fetch lands. Brainstorm's real power comes from synergies in the decks its included in, not the fact that it's WILDLY undercosted (I mean, we can argue about just how undercosted Brainstorm is, but I feel like quadrupling the mana cost might put Ancestral Recall squarely in the realm of fair, whereas doing that to Brainstorm would make it nigh unplayable).

I won't argue that it's undercosted. Yes, Brainstorm is an instant. Well spotted. Broken...I don't know. That's about which I am torn. It's certainly not broken in a vacuum, but it very well may be broken in context of fetch lands.

menace13

08-12-2014, 11:26 AM

You just said last night you didn't think strategic diversity was a problem, and here you are today saying it is, I really don't get it.

The DCI has shown to change its mind on things.

Making the argument for color diversity is by extension grouping all decks with blue together.

Ignoring that we can change our minds as you so happened to note. By extension is a rather presumptuous leap in logic that only serves to put words in another's mouth. And, do we have any word on whether the DCI changed their mind? Or at the very least can we follow precedents set not too long ago that outlined the criteria of banning for Misstep as one that is something that saturates lists and reduces color diversity. Unless you want to argue that that is the same as asking for collectors numbers balance, or w/e the hell that is supposed to mean anyway.

If you want to make the argument having Brainstorm kills diversity from a color perspective then it makes sense for sure
Yes.

HSCK

08-12-2014, 11:29 AM

Ignoring that we can change our minds as you so happened to note. By extension is a rather presumptuous leap in logic that only serves to put words in another's mouth. And, do we have any word on whether the DCI changed their mind? Or at the very least can we follow precedents set not too long ago that outlined the criteria of banning for Misstep as one that is something that saturates lists and reduces color diversity. Unless you want to argue that that is the same as asking for collectors numbers balance, or w/e the hell that is supposed to mean anyway.

Yes.

What are you talking about? Your first paragraph is pretty unclear. Are you saying that now you think there is no strategic diversity? We have a more recent precedent of the DCI changing their mind, like unbanning Bitterblossom and Nacatl, or does that not count as changing direction?

menace13

08-12-2014, 11:42 AM

What are you talking about? Your first paragraph is pretty unclear. Are you saying that now you think there is no strategic diversity? We have a more recent precedent of the DCI changing their mind, like unbanning Bitterblossom and Nacatl, or does that not count as changing direction?
Was that change in question of relating to policy of criteria or assuming that the change was philosophical in nature?
How does unbanning Nacatl and Bitterblossom in Modern correlate to their policy of a Blue dominated meta as a mark of unbalance in Legacy? Or are we just using the fact that they unbanned this one card that they had banned in Modern means they changed their mind on Blue dominance being okay in Legacy? And by extension Misstep should be legal because they changed their minds? I dont really follow what you are arguing for?

HSCK

08-12-2014, 12:09 PM

Was that change in question of relating to policy of criteria or assuming that the change was philosophical in nature?
How does unbanning Nacatl and Bitterblossom in Modern correlate to their policy of a Blue dominated meta as a mark of unbalance in Legacy? Or are we just using the fact that they unbanned this one card that they had banned in Modern means they changed their mind on Blue dominance being okay in Legacy? And by extension Misstep should be legal because they changed their minds? I dont really follow what you are arguing for?

I don't think you can compare Brainstorm and Misstep beyond, "look, they have x amount in the top 8!" Furthermore, Julian's assessment of color diversity seems spot on, that it doesn't make any sense to point to a color and say, "look, things are bad!"

From my own experience at big events and talking to WotC officials and ex-R&D people (one of the few upsides to working a big event instead of being on the floor), they care about strategic diversity more than a simple pie chart with the colors on it. This philosophy has been the driving force for Modern, and it's something they use when evaluating all formats. Misstep caused a huge amount of strategies to flounder, can you say the same for Brainstorm? I mean I keep asking, what exactly is Brainstorm killing? Jund? Death and Taxes? Is there a specific archetype that is now dead because of Brainstorm?

Megadeus

08-12-2014, 12:14 PM

No archetypes are dead as a direct result of Brainstorm. It simply puts you on the "Play brainstorm or reduce your chances of placing highly in a tourney by a decent margin" thing.

rufus

08-12-2014, 12:30 PM

... Misstep caused a huge amount of strategies to flounder, can you say the same for Brainstorm? ...

I don't understand what the standard for 'causing a strategy to flounder' is. What strategies does Misstep cause to flounder?

Finn

08-12-2014, 12:37 PM

I don't understand what the standard for 'causing a strategy to flounder' is. What strategies does Misstep cause to flounder?

Oh, wait. I got this one, fellas.

Explanation: Those with spells that cost 1.

On another note...
No archetypes are dead as a direct result of Brainstorm. It simply puts you on the "Play brainstorm or reduce your chances of placing highly in a tourney by a decent margin" thing. Is this not exactly where we started on page 1?

danyul

08-12-2014, 12:41 PM

Clearly some of you were not playing when Mental Misstep was around. If seeing a bunch of Brainstorms in Top 8 results makes you upset, you would have lost your minds when every single deck was playing 4 Misstep and resolving your first spell felt like pulling teeth.

Edit: this post had no point. I dunno what I'm even addressing. I need coffee.

Parcher

08-12-2014, 01:10 PM

Misstep caused a huge amount of strategies to flounder, can you say the same for Brainstorm? I mean I keep asking, what exactly is Brainstorm killing? Jund? Death and Taxes? Is there a specific archetype that is now dead because of Brainstorm?

Yes. Zoo is awful in this Brainstorm-centric meta. Where it's plethora of redundant 1-mana spells made it well-positioned in the Misstep era.

menace13

08-12-2014, 01:24 PM

I don't think you can compare Brainstorm and Misstep beyond, "look, they have x amount in the top 8!" Furthermore, Julian's assessment of color diversity seems spot on, that it doesn't make any sense to point to a color and say, "look, things are bad!"

You can compare the two. If their reasoning was too many blue decks. Then is it that we are as a format in that same place? That is exactly what the DCI in their own words did in regards to the blue dominance caused by Misstep.

Misstep caused a huge amount of strategies to flounder, can you say the same for Brainstorm?
Which strategies did Misstep cause to flounder? What were the percentages of the top 12 decks in the format that constitute a top 8 during that time? Today by your data collection it is 60%, correct? Was it marginally lower or drastically?

blackheartz

08-12-2014, 01:32 PM

Yes. Zoo is awful in this Brainstorm-centric meta. Where it's plethora of redundant 1-mana spells made it well-positioned in the Misstep era.

Zoo is not dead because of BS. It is just badly positioned in the meta. Seriously we are blaming BS for killing zoo now??

ahg113

08-12-2014, 01:51 PM

Zoo is not dead because of BS. It is just badly positioned in the meta. Seriously we are blaming BS for killing zoo now??

What will it take to convince people that BS is over powered and detrimental to the game? If zoo is a convincing argument (which it appears it's not), it's a good hill to fight on (so it isn't).

Finn

08-12-2014, 01:53 PM

Zoo is not dead because of BS. It is just badly positioned in the meta. Seriously we are blaming BS for killing zoo now??

You can make the argument for that. Delver of Secrets is yet another card that gets a turbo boost from Brainstorm. And I think most people would agree that the very existence of Delver makes players scratch their heads as to why they would bother with Zoo and its less impressive terrestrial analogue.

HSCK

08-12-2014, 01:56 PM

Zoo has no prey either, which is probably why it's not in the meta.

Parcher

08-12-2014, 02:19 PM

Zoo has no prey either, which is probably why it's not in the meta.

Incorrect. Zoo has two things it preys on; Tribal, and inconsistancy. Both of which have been forced out of and/or negated by Brainstorm.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-12-2014, 02:24 PM

You are confusing strategic diversity with colour diversity.

To me, arguing solely based on pure colour diversity is not far form arguing for collectors number diversity.

Listen, Kefalín, and what do you imagine under those words "strategic diversity"? Is that this brainstormdeathritestoneforgeconfidantponderhymnswordsboltgoyfgoyfgoyf metagame?

I for one dislike the nowadays state of Legacy. Imho the best time was years ago, definitely before Griseltard, Misstep and maybe even before Goyf. If you like today's metagame with is hyper-efficient one- and two-drops (there's what, some fifty different cards played altogether?) and consider it strategically diverse, then you'd definitely love the metagame of past where there were such a gems as Wildfire.dec, Angel Stompy, Trinket Solution or w/e the else.
Today's metagame is pretty boring and predictable, the decks are boring and predictable, too. Lately I realized I simply dislike the tournament scene and I dislike the decks played. I find little joy in playing them, and I find little joy in playing against them. Maybe I'm just fed up with the game and simply need a pause, but it really gets old to play against the unending stream of DRS, SFM, BS, SDT, CB, JTMS, FoW, LED all night long. For me it's more like another work, and I already got one, so what's the point of this all? To ride to the tournament already annoyed right before it started?

And I'm not even saying that it's Brainstorm's fault. I'm not even saying it's a fault per se, maybe others like this metagame, and maybe I just need that pause and return back in full force. However, the nature of today's Legacy where every deck needs to stand chance against those extremely powerful 1-3 cmc cards (with occasional Jace thrown in the mix, yeah) leads to a very static metagame, one that definitely IS NOT strategically diverse, unless you fell like the many Delver lists are that much different from each other that it warrants even a single word.

Imao a strategically diverse metagame would include not only DTBs plus a non-DTB Delver.dec ("don't panic, it'll be back on next update") and then some Hatebear antideck, but also things like, idk, Wildfire, Angel Stompy, Trinket Solution or w/e the else.

Ok, ok, I know, you may "play whatever you want", and all that jazz.
Yeah, I may play w/e I want and I may even swallow the fact I won't win. (But then there's really no incentive to play at all, I may simply make a monthly cheque to pay for winning people's prizes and stay at home.) Trouble is that even though I may try better and more than your local family brewery, the rest of the people won't, so I end up with a sub-optimal list playing against super-duper-efficient one-drop I win herp-Delver-derp-Daze deck round after round; yawn.

This meta. So much diverse. Wow.

HSCK

08-12-2014, 02:25 PM

That's the opposite of incorrect, tribal decks aren't in the meta so it doesn't have prey, how in the world is that wrong? And Zoo doesn't beat any of the glass cannon combo decks either does it? So what is it trying to beat?

iamajellydonut

08-12-2014, 02:27 PM

Zoo is dead because it ceased to be good. The relative meta has very little to do with it. If a deck is constructed well and is in the hands of a competent pilot, it stands a fair chance against the world. But the fact of the matter is that Zoo is just outclassed. There are better decks, even better non-blue decks, that drop creatures and smack shit up without resorting to the classic Wild Nacatl.

HSCK

08-12-2014, 02:38 PM

Listen, Kefalín, and what do you imagine under those words "strategic diversity"? Is that this brainstormdeathritestoneforgeconfidantponderhymnswordsboltgoyfgoyfgoyf metagame?

I for one dislike the nowadays state of Legacy. Imho the best time was years ago, definitely before Griseltard, Misstep and maybe even before Goyf. If you like today's metagame with is hyper-efficient one- and two-drops (there's what, some fifty different cards played altogether?) and consider it strategically diverse, then you'd definitely love the metagame of past where there were such a gems as Wildfire.dec, Angel Stompy, Trinket Solution or w/e the else.
Today's metagame is pretty boring and predictable, the decks are boring and predictable, too. Lately I realized I simply dislike the tournament scene and I dislike the decks played. I find little joy in playing them, and I find little joy in playing against them. Maybe I'm just fed up with the game and simply need a pause, but it really gets old to play against the unending stream of DRS, SFM, BS, SDT, CB, JTMS, FoW, LED all night long. For me it's more like another work, and I already got one, so what's the point of this all? To ride to the tournament already annoyed right before it started?

And I'm not even saying that it's Brainstorm's fault. I'm not even saying it's a fault per se, maybe others like this metagame, and maybe I just need that pause and return back in full force. However, the nature of today's Legacy where every deck needs to stand chance against those extremely powerful 1-3 cmc cards (with occasional Jace thrown in the mix, yeah) leads to a very static metagame, one that definitely IS NOT strategically diverse, unless you fell like the many Delver lists are that much different from each other that it warrants even a single word.

Imao a strategically diverse metagame would include not only DTBs plus a non-DTB Delver.dec ("don't panic, it'll be back on next update") and then some Hatebear antideck, but also things like, idk, Wildfire, Angel Stompy, Trinket Solution or w/e the else.

Ok, ok, I know, you may "play whatever you want", and all that jazz.
Yeah, I may play w/e I want and I may even swallow the fact I won't win. (But then there's really no incentive to play at all, I may simply make a monthly cheque to pay for winning people's prizes and stay at home.) Trouble is that even though I may try better and more than your local family brewery, the rest of the people won't, so I end up with a sub-optimal list playing against super-duper-efficient one-drop I win herp-Delver-derp-Daze deck round after round; yawn.

This meta. So much diverse. Wow.

As for this, maybe you're talking about the fact there are only a dozen or so good cards in the format, but that's not a Brainstorm only problem, that's an everything problem. As for all those decks you mentioned, I don't think any of them were ever top tier decks anyway.

In fact, go pick a time you had as many decks doing different things occupying similar percentages of the meta? You're living in a fantasy land of nostalgia. Pre-Goyf what was it, Gobbos, Threshold, Landstill, and Solidarity? Then it was decks trying to use Goyf in some capacity, so maybe 2007-2009 Legacy was the high point? I don't remember 2010 and 2011 being all that diverse, but Delver radically altered things anyway. Shardless Agent, Abrupt Decay, and DRS all came after that too, oh and the Miracle mechanic. All of those things are radically more powerful than what preceded them, and all are super different too.

Russian Alara

08-12-2014, 02:56 PM

Sdematt: Jeff says you fail to Link None SCG events:

https://twitter.com/JeffHoogland/status/499264380425744385

ahg113

08-12-2014, 02:58 PM

...but Delver radically altered things anyway. Shardless Agent, Abrupt Decay, and DRS all came after that too, oh and the Miracle mechanic. All of those things are radically more powerful than what preceded them, and all are super different too.

Just focusing on the Shardless, Delver and Miracle mechanic. BS in combination with these things makes Legacy BS or bust, because they are all infinitely better with BS, strong unto themselves, and have few comparables in other colors to manipulate the game. The same way Flash isn't broken without Protean Hulk (and likely Grislebrand), with the addition of other cards/mechanics, BS is not correct for the environment.

No one is trying to remove Blue's filter. The majority of non-U players are saying, sub BS for Portent, or any other legal single :u: draw spell. Being able to can-trip at instant speed is busted, that's my biggest beef.

Or, I'm of mind to say, keep BS, and axe the total of V.Clique, Snappy, Delver & TNN instead. That brings balance back to the color wheel and hopefully the game; or, how does one explain why every spell should not just be colorless?

To mention AD & DRS- what part of an uncounterable removal spell is broken? That it can't be countered and is instant speed? Woe is the world of smotherable permanents. DRS, it allows a black/green resourced deck to interact with gy in meaningful ways. Still adopted by :u: in a couple decks, so...? Are these awkward because usually :u: has gotten nice things as of late?

HSCK

08-12-2014, 03:16 PM

I didn't say Decay was broken? Just that it's extremely powerful, same with DRS, and Liliana. The power level of a lot of things went up which renders old decks much less viable.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-12-2014, 03:40 PM

As for this, maybe you're talking about the fact there are only a dozen or so good cards in the format, but that's not a Brainstorm only problem, that's an everything problem. As for all those decks you mentioned, I don't think any of them were ever top tier decks anyway.
I'm not saying they were top tiers (maybe they were), I'm saying that even the Landstill-Goblins-Thresh- IGGy/Solidarity metagame was more strategically diverse than Delver.dec. and then there were those other decks (like I mentioned) with a completely different strategy. But one may argue that we got 8Post instead of Wildifre, Dredge instead of IGGy, etc. so maybe today's metagame is diverse, who can tell...

In fact, go pick a time you had as many decks doing different things occupying similar percentages of the meta?
They're not doing different things. Mostly they: 1) tap undercosted flyers, or 2) cheat some overcosted flyer or 3) count to ten or 4) lock the game with hatebears or CB/Top.

You're living in a fantasy land of nostalgia.
Maybe.
Btw, is there a hidden thorn of mockery, or am I just a pussy? Just asking...

Pre-Goyf what was it, Gobbos, Threshold, Landstill, and Solidarity? Then it was decks trying to use Goyf in some capacity, so maybe 2007-2009 Legacy was the high point? I don't remember 2010 and 2011 being all that diverse, but Delver radically altered things anyway. Shardless Agent, Abrupt Decay, and DRS all came after that too, oh and the Miracle mechanic. All of those things are radically more powerful than what preceded them, and all are super different too.
Green: yes.
Purple: not really. Are they different from the old decks? Definitely. Are they different from each other? Well, Miracles is different from Delvers and SnT, but at the end, Delvers tap for three and SnT cheats some crap. Is that the holy grail of diversity? Idk...
I see three to four archetypes, not counting Elves or DnT; ok six archetypes.

And no, the many "different" Delver decks are not different, at least no more than NQGw, NQGr, Moon Thresh, Swans thresh, Can thresh, 5c Thresh and CB Thresh were. They tap small dudes to deal twenty. That's not really special...

ReAnimator

08-12-2014, 03:49 PM

I mean I keep asking, what exactly is Brainstorm killing? Jund? Death and Taxes? Is there a specific archetype that is now dead because of Brainstorm?

While not an archetype per se, I think the fact that BS and Top makes hand disruption way weaker than It otherwise would be is a pretty bad thing.

If a deck could run a disruption package of some combination of Duress/Thoughtseizes/IOK's/Therapy/Hymns/Lilly etc without having to back it up with counters that might be a good thing, but right now it's not very viable. Being on the draw and Thoughtseizing etc. any deck with BS or top is a pretty terrible proposition, an early top or BS essentially makes you immune to non counter based interaction most of the time.

Obviously these black disruption cards are still very playable and do see play, just not in the numbers they would in a format without BS or top (see modern and standard). Relying solely on targeted discard for disruption is not something you can do and be as successful as the counter based decks in a format that has a bunch of combo decks that have access to tops and BS.

I'm not saying the format needs or should have this be a thing, just saying that it is a thing.

HSCK

08-12-2014, 03:54 PM

No mockery, just a sad reality, I look back at the old days of Legacy and think fondly of them too, then I remember we were arguing over similar things back then too like Goblin Lackey and Tarmo, and eventually Mystical Tutor and Survival. I don't think you can say all the Delver decks are the same, 2 of them have another creature which is probably more important in DRS and SFM, unless all disruption+aggression is the same. Even if you put them all together you still have:

Miracles
Jund
D&T
Delver
Elves
Storm
Sneak and Show
Blade Control

On the fringes you have MUD, Tezz, Burn, Maverick, Fish, Dredge, Reanimator.

twndomn

08-12-2014, 04:17 PM

I sense people here have a glass half-empty mentality.

1. Brainstorm did not stop strategy diversity. Most tempo/combo/control decks run Brainstorm.

2. In Vintage, most decks run Moxen and Power. Yes, the 2 format are different. However, if you are looking at the 60 MD slots, it's just the staples taking up the slots. Why can't Legacy have its version of staples? I don't see that as a problem needing to be solved.

3. Color diversity. Yes, it's leaning heavily to Blue. However, Wizard over the course of years have tried to boost Green. That's the glass half-full part. Come on, GSZ, DRS, Abrupt Decay, and Goyf, they are all incentives. You can't keep complaining about the dominance of Blue cards, while overlooking the Green cards I've just mentioned.

LOLWut

08-12-2014, 04:39 PM

Even if you put them all together you still have:

Miracles
Jund
D&T
Delver
Elves
Storm
Sneak and Show
Blade Control

On the fringes you have MUD, Tezz, Burn, Maverick, Fish, Dredge, Reanimator.

Plus decks that are as good as any other deck out there in Imperial Painter, Lands, 12 Post, and Jund Depths, which very few people play. Ask experienced pilots of any of those decks if they feel disadvantaged in this meta.

2. In Vintage, most decks run Moxen and Power. Yes, the 2 format are different. However, if you are looking at the 60 MD slots, it's just the staples taking up the slots. Why can't Legacy have its version of staples? I don't see that as a problem needing to be solved.

And, Legacy staples are much, much less universal and of a complete package deal than Vintage staples.

Tormod

08-12-2014, 04:46 PM

Zoo sucks in modern too.

/discussion on brainstorm killing zoo

Barook

08-12-2014, 04:54 PM

Zoo sucks in modern too.

/discussion on brainstorm killing zoo
To be fair, Aggro outside of Affinity isn't viable either in Modern, not just Zoo.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-12-2014, 05:15 PM

HSCK

08-12-2014, 05:33 PM

Tormod

08-12-2014, 06:19 PM

To be fair, Aggro outside of Affinity isn't viable either in Modern, not just Zoo.

2 things

1) Affinity is more Combo than aggro.
2) the point I'm establishing is "if it sucks in Modern you can't blame brainstorm."

Bed Decks Palyer

08-12-2014, 06:34 PM

Because I don't think all of them were really on the same level, the 12 decks I have in my top tier of the meta are TA and Miracles at 7%, and the rest between 4% and 2.5%. Not only that, but all of those decks either evolved or were replaced, Angel Stompy was never that good, Survival got banned, and there's nothing like Blade Control, Shardless, Jund, or Elves back then either.
I'm not sure what's your argument. There were some dozen decks back in Stone Age of Legacy, and now there are some dozen of them again. It'll be interesting, maybe even necessary to see the percentages, but frankly, this is hard for 2005-2009 metagames, moreover it's not exactly necessary: I just wanted to say that the strategical diversity was present back in the day. And compared to today's metagame, it was maybe even more diverse; sadly this cannot be told for sure without those old percentages.
Yeah, there weren't Blade Control Shardles, Jund or Elves. There were Dreadstill or Counterslivers or w/e the X Blade substitution, there was Rock instead of Jund, there were Goblins instead of Elves, there was Survival instead of Death(less) Blade or any other recent archetype.
To me it looks like similarly diverse metagame, maybe even a bit more, because whole lot of today's decks play nearly the same, see the URx Tempo Delver, UGxx Tempo Deathrite Delver (you may even merge these two deck types together somehow, it's not like RUG and bURG has that different gameplan) or several other dominating archetypes which may be divided into subcategories, but mostly play the same.

I'm not here to tell you you're wrong about how you feel, that's your opinion of the game and should be treated just as respectfully as anyone else's, but I am going to point out that right now there is a large diversity of strategies in the metagame and that there are more rogue decks doing well around the world than any period I can remember. I think it is fair to say there are less cards you can build around and use now than maybe previously, but those cards are also super versatile and slot in different strategies.
We would need those numbers from past. There were rogue decks back then, and I think they fared much better, because they weren't competing with the super-efficient package of today's cards. Cards that are versatile, slot in different strategies, no questions about, but also cards that led to the convergence of decks design that suppresses anything that isn't similar.

I disagree with grouping all blue decks or decks with Brainstorm together because frankly, they're not and there's no way you can really argue that they are all the same.
Huh? :eek:
Perfect, than we'd save ourselves an argument, coz I'm a great hater of grouping all decks with Brainstorm together.

Dice_Box

08-12-2014, 06:47 PM

Ok, pin me confused. Where are we in this "Discussion"? Because it seams that everyone has stalled and are kind of having 3 different conversations with each other while effectively saying nothing new.

I mean where are we on this topic? Hell, is there even a single defining topic now?

menace13

08-12-2014, 06:50 PM

the point I'm establishing is "if it sucks in Modern you can't blame brainstorm."
Eyes rolled so far I may have just went blind.

Plus decks that are as good as any other deck out there in Imperial Painter, Lands, 12 Post, and Jund Depths, which very few people play.
Not according to top 8 data.

Richard Cheese

08-12-2014, 07:05 PM

I disagree with grouping all blue decks or decks with Brainstorm together because frankly, they're not and there's no way you can really argue that they are all the same.

Pretty much this. I think people are just pissed that the meta feels really same-y because we're seeing the same cards over and over, so even though the decks are somewhat different, you're getting a lot of the same interactions regardless of the matchup. Brainstorm was around for nearly a decade before this format existed. It's just a consistency engine with fetches, which I don't think is inherently broken, but consistency just keeps getting better as the power level of other cards rises.

Even so, I don't think banning it would really have much effect on the dominance of Blue, because without it Blue still gets:

All the counters
All the other cantrips
Most of the best creatures: Delver, TNN, Snapcaster, Clique
All the Mind Sculptors

It's not like the current meta happened overnight, but it does seem like Blue has gotten an inordinate amount of new toys in recent years. Just since Zendikar:

Spell Pierce
JTMS
Preordain
Gitaxian Probe
Delver
Snapcaster
TNN
Omniscience
Enter the Infinite
Flusterstorm
Swan Song

And that's just the mono-colored stuff. If you think banning one cantrip, even the best one, is going to somehow roll all that back overnight, you're selling yourself toupées.

LOLWut

08-12-2014, 09:20 PM

Plus decks that are as good as any other deck out there in Imperial Painter, Lands, 12 Post, and Jund Depths, which very few people play.

Not according to top 8 data.

If they get 1/10 the placings that Thresh/Shardless/DeathBlade/whatever gets, while having 1/10 of the entrants or even less, then the data would agree with me.

menace13

08-12-2014, 09:26 PM

If they get 1/10 the placings that Thresh/Shardless/DeathBlade/whatever gets, while having 1/10 of the entrants or even less, then the data would agree with me.
Except that is a dubious statement at best. It's like you have somehow uncovered the super duper mega ultra secret tech deck that beats format and everyone else but you is too dumb to know it. Like, there isn't any major consensus among all of the Legacy community here and worldwide that plays regularly and places in top 8s. Must be that since magic is a male majority game, and males like the color blue that when they see a blue magic card they will play it. Cos, you know fuk testing. Everyone is just netdecking and not trying to beat the format. AmIDOingThisRite?

HSCK

08-12-2014, 10:53 PM

Teveshszat

08-12-2014, 10:55 PM

Hello

yes the next thing should not be taken to serious.

Except that is a dubious statement at best. It's like you have somehow uncovered the super duper mega ultra secret tech deck that beats format and everyone else but you is too dumb to know it. Like, there isn't any major consensus among all of the Legacy community here and worldwide that plays regularly and places in top 8s. Must be that since magic is a male majority game, and males like the color blue that when they see a blue magic card they will play it. Cos, you know fuk testing. Everyone is just netdecking and not trying to beat the format. AmIDOingThisRite?

Nope you are not doing it right. You forgot to make all your posts blue so that we agree with them even when we think you argumentation
is wrong. You know men are stupid and can´t think for their own so we need clear color indicators for what we have to find good and bad.

Must be that since magic is a male majority game, and males like the color blue that when they see a blue magic card they will play it.

Btw this is sexsim.

Best regards Teveshszat

AggroControl

08-12-2014, 11:34 PM

http://allsteelefitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Well-done-old-chap.jpg

Hi Jeff. I feel your pain, I played a lot of RGx Loam in both Extended and Legacy, and I loved the deck. Frankly, it isn't Tier1 anymore (I'm not sure if it ever was in Legacy, but it definitely was very close to being a top deck), and all the words "play what you like" are true, but it gets pretty old pretty fast once one starts to lose because of inconsistency issues.

This is actually the primary issue when playing a non-mono-color list that also doesn't play Brainstorm in a long tourney. Your own inconsistency will doom you now and then but the opponent's strong consistency will often make your opening hands almost irrelevant. If you play a good mono-color list then most of the mana consistency issues go away but you wind up with a list that is overly vulnerable to being hated on.

In a meta in which no multi-color list was highly consistent the problems would tend to wash out, with opposing inconsistent draws often cancelling each other out and creating a contest in the process. Now the mono-color lists would be more consistent but also more vulnerable to being hated on.

That's the meta we need. Not the meta where you either play Brainstorm or go mono-color, leading to just a few top 16 lists that choose neither path.

menace13

08-12-2014, 11:37 PM

Seriously? Personal attacks? Is that what this is devolving to now? It's more proper to say those decks overperform every now and then without changing the statistical make up of the format, but all you're doing is acting petulantly.
What? Where do you see a personal attack there?

You forgot to make all your posts blue so that we agree with them even when we think you argumentation
is wrong.
I think that would be best. Otherwise I keep having to wave away ridiculous statements such as : "Look at this one top 8 and ignore the entire year" or " Collectors numbers equals balance" and " no one really knows the best decks, entire community is ignorant"

AggroControl

08-13-2014, 12:23 AM

Ok... yes. But this isn't more strategically diverse then say:

UWx Landstill
Rock
Angel Stompy/Stax
Threshold
Goblins
Iggy
Survival
only Blade is a new concept, but you may substitute it with... Dreadstill? Counterslivers?

Gen-Con Legacy Championships 2008

4c Slivers (Brainstorm)
Boros Aggro-Control
Dragon Stompy
Elves
2-land Belcher
Painter's Servant (Brainstorm)
Goblins
3c Faeries (Brainstorm)

That's diversity. You have 3 tribal lists all trying to win with a different plan (counter control synergy, combo, aggro synergy). You have two combo lists that are using different tempos, with linear and set piece strategies both represented. You have a lockout list trying to shut down the opponent immediately and gain inevitability in the process. You have two aggro-control lists with one using counterspells and card advantage and the other creature removal and burn to set the field of play.

That's a healthy meta. The most-represented cards in the final 8 are 12 Brainstorm, 12 Force of Will, 11 Aether Vial (in Slivers, Goblins and Faeries)

A year later: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/53c

What's changed? A powerful new blue creature Tarmogoyf appears in 5 lists alongside 20 Brainstorms and 20 Force of Will. There are 18 Dazes in those 5 lists. There are 12 Counterbalance and 11 Spell Snare in those lists. The lists all play at least 3 of either Counterbalance or Spell Snare.

This is not a healthy meta as 3 of the lists, including the winner, try to achieve a state of non-interaction with opponents by locking them out or blitzing them early in ways not easily managed. 5 of them are blue based aggro-control of varying speeds.

Dice_Box

08-13-2014, 01:12 AM

I think it is time to examine a different question, because it also matters but I think it changes the arguments depending on one's answer:

Do you still enjoy playing this game?

Teveshszat

08-13-2014, 01:49 AM

Hello,

yes I like playing the game and enyjoing it. It is different from the days were you could just play without creatures in
control decks and win like Punishing Fire Control or even further back Keeper but as long as I can play control Decks
like Miracles I will have fun in Legacy.

Best Regards Teveshszat

LOLWut

08-13-2014, 01:56 AM

Except that is a dubious statement at best. It's like you have somehow uncovered the super duper mega ultra secret tech deck that beats format and everyone else but you is too dumb to know it. Like, there isn't any major consensus among all of the Legacy community here and worldwide that plays regularly and places in top 8s. Must be that since magic is a male majority game, and males like the color blue that when they see a blue magic card they will play it. Cos, you know fuk testing. Everyone is just netdecking and not trying to beat the format. AmIDOingThisRite?

Ha.

Nothing was said about a format-dominating secret deck. Things were said about infrequently played decks that might have similar top 8 #s if they were played by similar #s of players at tourneys. I assume you're on board with the idea that if the same deck gains more pilots, the deck's number of top finishes usually goes up proportionately.

There's a long history of people "overplaying" or "underplaying" decks for reasons as diverse as card availability, personal preferences, and misinformation. There are more Too Much Information articles, but these are the two I found that compile data from multiple SCG tourneys.

From April, 2011 (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/21670_Too_Much_Information_Legacys_Last_Four.html), detailing March's four tournaments:

The three most commonly played decks were Merfolk with 75 pilots, a 51.34% win percentage, and a 89.51 average finish, Goblins with 48 pilots, a 39.53% win percentage, and a 115.79 average finish, and Junk with 45 pilots, a 51.76% win percentage, and a 96.78 average finish.

Starting from the bottom, (I'm gonna put # of pilots / win % / average finish in order) Reanimator with 8 / 50% / 79.88, Landstill with 9 / 52.88% / 91.44, RUG with 9 / 49.04% / 85, Metalworker with 9 / 55.83% / 77.67.

From April, 2010 (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/20629_Too_Much_Information_Legacy_Two_Months_of_Data.html), detailing the previous month's three tournaments:

The three most commonly played decks were Merfolk with 76 / 45.87% / 101.2, Goblins with 45 / 46.58% / 101.33, and GWB Rock with 34 / 56.97% / 81.18.

Starting from the bottom, White Weenie with 5 / 43.1% / 94.4, GWB Survival with 5 / 46.43 % / 107.6, and Canadian Thresh with 5 / 61.54% / 48.

Browse around the rest of the charts, and the charts of the entire TMI series, and see if you still think that players' deck choices are based on a universal consensus of what has the best chance to succeed, that decks with few players are always that way because of lack of quality, and that people wouldn't widely play a deck unless it represented the best chance to win. The opening quote from the 2010 article:

Well, it was bound to happen at some point: the most popular decks in Legacy are not the best.

menace13

08-13-2014, 02:07 AM

Ha.

Nothing was said about a format-dominating secret deck. Things were said about infrequently played decks that might have similar top 8 #s if they were played by similar #s of players at tourneys.
When that magical Christmas land happens where people suddenly stop playing Brainstorms and start playing non-blue shells call me. I'm going to go with the people playing Brainstorm are winning. It isn't like card availability by majority of players was accidently oops no Brainstorms guess I go play these other decks that are just as good if only more people played them. If 100% of people picked non blue decks is that by accident?

Bed Decks Palyer

08-13-2014, 03:10 AM

Pretty much this. I think people are just pissed that the meta feels really same-y because we're seeing the same cards over and over, so even though the decks are somewhat different, you're getting a lot of the same interactions regardless of the matchup. Brainstorm was around for nearly a decade before this format existed.If you think banning one cantrip, even the best one, is going to somehow roll all that back overnight, you're selling yourself toupées.

Yeah, that's my point, the games feel all the same, it simply doesn't matter what fetch you lead and what's the first undercosted beater that will be snuffed out by first undercosted removal. It's still the same, Deathrite, Delver, Delver, Goyf, Goyf, Goyf, cantrip, cantrip, cantrip, cantrip and it's getting old.
Banning BS would definitely not undo blue's dominance, as there are lots of really powerful (sometimes even stupid) cards. There's hardly anything else to do than either move along, or move away, or simply hope for the powerful prints in non-blue that cannot be absorbed by blue.

Part of the fun I had back in 2007 when I entered the Legacy scene (and somehow coerced our lgs owner to start Eternal tourneys; it took me some time to dispose of Vintage and its community, but after a while, it was Legacy-only Thursdays), so part of the fun I had was with playing all sorts of old "crappy" cards, that were not only source of nostalgia, but also quite reasonable choices. Speaking of creatures, at least until Goyf's printing, there was no beater that stood higher than the others, and I Top8 my first big Legacy with a port of Ice Age - 5thEd - Weatherlight 5CG.dec. And no, it wasn't scrubs metagame that allowed me to win with River Boas and Rancors, on my way to Top8 I met several then-DTBs including Solidarity which I defeated on backs of Winter Orb, Pyroblast and River Boa with Rancor.

I miss the metagame where there were really different decks and when not every second play was "fetch, Sea, DRS" or "Tundra, SFM, BSkull" or "Foothills, dual, Goyf". There's really not much space for brewing today, and the deck design is bound by the very powerful and flexible spells that make the decks/games feel alike. It's not bad per se, it allows for some really powerful and broken plays and it makes matches intense. Otoh, brokeness is like seasoning and you cannot live only of that. And if you use it too much, you'll lose taste; speaking of Magic - games become boring and predictable. But maybe this is just me bored of the game/constructed and there's a remedy for too much seasoning: I may rinse my mouth with some limited. (If only sealed deck was more popular. I hate the very idea of draft, it's not like I wanna sit next to the dudes screaming in orgasm "look how brrrokahn, lol lol zat's insane, gimme joint")

Gen-Con Legacy Championships 2008

4c Slivers (Brainstorm)
Boros Aggro-Control
Dragon Stompy
Elves
2-land Belcher
Painter's Servant (Brainstorm)
Goblins
3c Faeries (Brainstorm)

That's diversity.
See? That's what I wrote about. For further comments on the many different game plans of those many different decks look up the original post. Just forget what's AggroControl saying about Goyf, it's not a blue creature. :smile:

I think it is time to examine a different question, because it also matters but I think it changes the arguments depending on one's answer:

Do you still enjoy playing this game?
Far less than just a few years ago.

edit:
Also, to expand the idea of strategic diversity a bit more, and to make some deck-to-deck comparison, feel free to lol and criticise, but look at this first:

2007/8 ___________________________________ 2014

UGr Fledgling Dragon Thresh _________________ UR Delver
UGr Canadian Threshold _____________________ Rug Delver
UGr Counterbalance Thresh __________________ bUrG
UGr Moon Swans Thresh ____________________ Deathblade
UGw Goyf(less) Thresh ______________________ TNN.dec
NQGw Counterbalance ______________________ Patriot
UGb Confidant Thresh _______________________ BUG
Eva Green/TA _____________________________ TA

I'm surely missing something, also the "2014 edition" are not exactly counterparts to their ancestors, I just sorted them to show that there was a similar "strategical" diversity - with big quotation marks, as those decks are not that strategically different - that we see today. And yeah, I'm only sorting the Threshold archetype and I'm mergin together established with rogue, Stifle builds with Counterbalance based, etc. What. Ever. It should have been an example of past diversity, and I don't think that 2007/8 metagame lacks something compared to today's.

Speaking of other archetypes, we've had no idiot-proof monoblue combo, and the Storm decks were quite less straightforward, at least until printing of the two brutal engines, AdN and PiF. It' not like IGGy Pop, pre-AdN TES or Doomsday were bad decks, but they were definitely more difficult to play then Show and Derp.

There were a bit less Wastelands all over the place, and Decay's nonexistance made 8Tombs-Chalice decks more reliable. Nowadays, when the Stompy decks cannot rely on the opponent being cut of cmc1 spells, and when Wasteland is the most usual land after a generic blue fetch, there's no reason to play already inconsistent deck that dies to well-placed Decay/Waste.

All sort of other non-blue or blue-lite decks die to combo (or at least their potential pilots fear it), so they cannot compete and all the Taigas, Savannahs and Plateaus collect dust while the metagame shifted towards uniformous throng of Deathrite Shamans, Goyfs, Ponders and whatever. It's strange and funny at once when non-blue FBB dual costs 50 % of cracked Revised USea. It tells a lot about diversity. And yeah, while one may say that color diversity makes the same sense as collector's number diversity, it once again says a lot about the (meta)game, card design and similar details. I remember the times when color pie mattered and when it had implications beyond what color of deckbox and sleeves you'll use; it made decks and gameplay diverse, because some colors had this and lacked this, while the other colors had that and lacked that, resulting in, you know, a diverse decks, diverse metagame, diverse gameplay experience...

HSCK

08-13-2014, 09:41 AM

JeffHoogland

08-13-2014, 10:19 AM

I'm just going to leave this link (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?24023-40-Tier-Legacy-Decks-Lists-Singles-Prices-etc-To-be-updated-regularly(started-2012)) to data posted on this very forum here.

The tl/dr is that:

560 decks played brainstorm
282 didn't

That card has an absurd power level.

~Jeff

HSCK

08-13-2014, 10:38 AM

Bed Decks Palyer

08-13-2014, 11:28 AM

How about a year later (http://www.gatheringmagic.com/gencon-legacy-championships/)?

Quick Countertop or Threshold decks, Dredge, Stax, and Loam. Is that really that different from now? I do think there are less good cards/more cards to check off when building a deck now, like Decay, DRS, SFM, Tarmo, Top, etc.
I'm not sure if it's that different. All I'm saying is that the past metagames weren't that flat as people tend to say. And I'm also saying that today's metagame isn't much more richer than that of past...

Guess all those decks with Brainstorm do the same thing right? Like beat Loam apparently.
Not exactly, they don't do the same. Also, isn't there some thorn again?

What do have the BS decks in common is that they are your Deck of Choice if you wanna win consistently over the longer tourney. Something non-blue decks are quite lacking. Also, some of those BS decks do quite the same, see all the UGxx Tempo Delver decks; they are not that diverse as people say. Flip Delver, support it with Mongoose/DRs and attack for twenty clearing path with removal. It's not a bad or children's strategy, it's legitimate, and there are differencies between Tempo Delver and Midrange Delver and/or w/e the plan or color combination. But it's not strategically diverse in away how Angel Stax, Counterslivers, Zilla Stompy, NQGw, IggyPop, Tog, MUC, Burn, Goblins and Landstill were.

Two things I wanted to say:
- not all Delver decks are distinct from each other, there's little diversity between bUrg DRS Delver and say RUG Mongoose Delver.
- not all metagames of past were poor compared to that of today.

Saying that BS leads to diverse metagame is false. BS has nothing to do with diverse metagame.
Saying BS is op is legitimate opinion and one that has quite some supporters.
Saying that BS is op doesn't necessarily mean that it should be banned. Btw, maybe it should.
Saying that BS should be banned doesn't necessarily mean that meta will flatten.
Saying that Delver decks are same doesn't mean that BS decks are the same.
Saying... etc.

Seriously, there are lots of arguments thrown around without much sense and much logic, people jump from one idea to another, they burn heaps of strawmen and hardly ever try to understand what exactly do they defend/oppose. Not that I'm not guilty of the same, I guess I am. No matter what, this thread is a mess and I'm going to take a short pause.

LOLWut

08-13-2014, 01:52 PM

When that magical Christmas land happens where people suddenly stop playing Brainstorms and start playing non-blue shells call me. I'm going to go with the people playing Brainstorm are winning. It isn't like card availability by majority of players was accidently oops no Brainstorms guess I go play these other decks that are just as good if only more people played them. If 100% of people picked non blue decks is that by accident?

Assuming I'm understanding this pidgin English correctly, we were talking about Imperial Painter, Lands, 12 Post, and Jund Depths, and you're saying that there aren't people who can't play them because they don't own $150 or $300 or $700 cards in Imperial Recruiter, Candelabra of Tawnos, and The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale?

I'm going to carefully lay this out, and I'd appreciate it if you'll tell me if you agree or disagree with each point, without ignoring the substance and again resorting to trolling.

a.) Imperial Painter, Lands, 12 Post, and Jund Depths are almost certainly played by a small fraction of the number of players that play frequently-placing decks like Thresh, Team America, etc at tournaments.

b.) You believe that even if these decks were played at the same frequency, they'd place noticeably less than current top decks.

c.) If the same deck has many more pilots in one tournament than another, there will probably be more high finishes in the tournament with more pilots.

d.) As seen in the TMI links I posted (albeit from several years ago, but such human tendencies surely haven't changed), there are many frequently-played and oft-placing decks that actually have poor win percentages and average finishes. There are also many rarely-played decks that actually have excellent win percentages and average finishes. Some of the decks in the latter category didn't often top 8 because of low representation, but once more players picked them up, started racking them up even though the actual decks didn't really change.

e.) If it's true that Imperial Painter, Lands, 12 Post, and Jund Depths are indeed rarely played, and it's true that they have a good win percentage and average finish on par with decks to beat, they would display a "deck to beat" number of top finishes if they had the appropriate number of pilots.

menace13

08-13-2014, 02:05 PM

Julian23

08-13-2014, 02:38 PM

as if these decks are secretly the best decks or at least on par with the most widely played ones. They're not.

I don't feel like arguing with the conclusions you proceed to draw since they are pretty much "because I think it is this way". But the premise itself is also kinda arbitrary, I'm not saying that you are wrong. But I also don't know whether you are right. Funny enough, especially for the ~10 months it took Maverick to catch on in the US, this is the exact kind of attitude that delayed its acceptance into the meta.

Also, if you feel you have a superior argument, childish comments like "Is that simple enough for you?" only hurts your cause and credibility. I can see that you might be frustrated with what you think are people that "just don't get it" - but keep in mind that people might be thinking the exact same about you. Unless people find a common ground of analysis, we're never really getting anywhere. I'm not talking about data.

menace13

08-13-2014, 02:53 PM

I don't feel like arguing with the conclusions you proceed to draw since they are pretty much "because I think it is this way". But the premise itself is also kinda arbitrary, I'm not saying that you are wrong. But I also don't know whether you are right. Funny enough, especially for the ~10 months it took Maverick to catch on in the US, this is the exact kind of attitude that delayed its acceptance into the meta.
Right, it does take some time for a deck to catch on. People slowly come over after exposure of seeing the lists place in events, players supporting the lists on forums and in events. But the decks in question have all been around for 2+ years now.

Also, if you feel you have a superior argument, childish comments like "Is that simple enough for you?" only hurts your cause and credibility.
That was made in response to his "I cant understand your pidgin English"

HammafistRoob

08-13-2014, 04:14 PM

AggroControl

08-14-2014, 08:41 AM

I won't argue that it's undercosted. Yes, Brainstorm is an instant. Well spotted. Broken...I don't know. That's about which I am torn. It's certainly not broken in a vacuum, but it very well may be broken in context of fetch lands.

Brainstorm is an instant speed draw 3. It's completely broken at 1cc and will be included in the vast majority of lists that can potentially run it. That you have to put 2 cards back isn't a limiter on how broken it is except in late game hellbent top deck situations and even then you got to dig 3 cards deep for the best card you'd see over the next 3 turns and at instant speed at the end of the opponent's turn. Want to win a game where both players are hellbent? Go look at the top 3 cards in your pile for a win-con. Ok, so now look at the potential value in being able to hide cards on top of your deck or shuffle away bad cards when you need to.

For a list not playing Brainstorm the initial mulligan decision can be very tough. Got 2 good cards and 2 questionable ones alongside two lands including a fetch and whatever functions as slow card filter for you? Probably should throw that back. If your slow card filter is instead Brainstorm that's a great hand.

Anybody arguing from any standpoint other than Brainstorm is a great meta-defining card is being intellectually dishonest in the process. Either that or they just don't understand how long tournaments work out.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-14-2014, 08:50 AM

That was made in response to his "I cant understand your pidgin English"
In fact I got the same trouble trying to understand what this means:

It isn't like card availability by majority of players was accidently oops no Brainstorms guess I go play these other decks that are just as good if only more people played them.

menace13

08-14-2014, 09:25 AM

In fact I got the same trouble trying to understand what this means:
Deck choice is a decision made. The players choose to play their non brainstorm decks same as some players choose to play with Brainstorm decks. The premise that most players didnt sleeve up the best decks because they dont have access to the cards is a lie. Does everyone have every card? No. Are all pros playing decks they dont want to play in GPs? No. If these other decks were so much better and outperforming as data from 2010-2011 suggests. Which, mind you was at a time when Brainstorm hovered around 50%. Then clearly those decks would have been popularized by now as strong finishes were racked up in events consistently. Reading GP top 8 profiles, how many of the players were wishing they played another deck? Does availability play some part? yes. A large part? I would wager no.

LeoCop 90

08-14-2014, 09:31 AM

All this talk about brainstorm, and probably any talk about banning/unbanning seems quite useless to me, simply because wizard doesn't care at all about legacy and i wouldn't be surprised if the banlist will never ever change until the end of the world, even if they print a one cost colorless mana instant that says "you win the match" in the next commander set.

We just have to accept that they care about modern, so legacy will eventually die or become quite an absurd format because they will never do anything to make it better/healtier. I'm sad about this, but i think it is the bitter reality.

btm10

08-14-2014, 09:38 AM

This whole thread is mind boggling and completely ignorant. Everyone has a different opinion no matter what the circumstances are. When HulkFlash was legal for a very brief period, there were people arguing that it was fine. Same with Misstep and Survival. All the arguments disregard every other opinion because everyone is always right no matter what. You're all just wasting your time trying to convince people this or that when there's literally a zero percent chance of that happening when it comes to magic. Everyone has this preconceived notion in their head that they know what's best for the format, and that's why I don't bother arguing with people on the internet about something that doesn't even matter. Every single person in this thread could say "BAN BRAINSTORM!!!" and it would have no effect whatsoever.

Lets just play draft guys, but we'll ban pack rat and umezawa's jitte.

I think at this point the arguing is less about convincing the other people debating and more about not letting arguments stand uncontested. As far as I know, the only time that the DCI has acted based on player outcry in the absence of extreme domination of some sort is the restriction of Trinisphere in Vintage ca. 2004. I could have missed some others when I was on hiatus (roughly late 2009/early 2010-2013), but in the Trinisphere case the question wasn't whether or not something need to be restricted, it was whether to restrict Trinisphere or Workshop; I can recall very few people saying that absolutely nothing was wrong, and it definitely took a large player outcry to move the needle. At least in my case, I want to make sure that if anyone with decision making power reads these forums to get an idea what players think (at least back in the early 2000s, the practice was fairly common) they know that there isn't anything approaching a consensus about Brainstorm needing a ban.

Deck choice is a decision made. The players choose to play their non brainstorm decks same as some players choose to play with Brainstorm decks. The premise that most players didnt sleeve up the best decks because they dont have access to the cards is a lie. Does everyone have every card? No. Are all pros playing decks they dont want to play in GPs? No. If these other decks were so much better and outperforming as data from 2010-2011 suggests. Which, mind you was at a time when Brainstorm hovered around 50%. Then clearly those decks would have been popularized by now as strong finishes were racked up in events consistently. Reading GP top 8 profiles, how many of the players were wishing they played another deck? Does availability play some part? yes. A large part? I would wager no.

I'd guess that it probably determines (at least to some extent) 1-2 decks/top 8, depending on the location of the tournament, etc. I definitely think in areas where Legacy isn't very popular, people who decide to buy in in order to play on the SCG circuit (or something similar) will tend to choose to buy the cards for whatever top performing deck appeals most to them rather than buy in on some sort of rogue or highly meta-dependent strategy, which makes sense because you want your expensive Legacy deck to stay good if everyone starts playing 3-4 basics and only 2 colors, or graveyard hate, or whatever. Most of the top decks are going to be blue based because that's what already succeeds, so more people buying into blue-based decks leads to more blue-based decks showing up in large events, giving the deck a higher representation at any given large event, which exacerbates the consistency issues of the nonblue decks when it comes to top 8 representation by taking the more consistent decks and making them more likely to top 8 just based on how many show up. The self-fulfilling prophecy angle is relevant here.

The issue that the nonblue decks tend to cluster at the bottom does have something to do with consistency issues, but it probably also has something to do with playskill and dedication to the format as well. Say that to a first approximation, the consistency that Brainstorm provides is worth something like one match win over the course of 9 rounds over a baseline deck with no Library manipulation. It's probably less than that, and cards like Top (in Painter) likely mitigate some (but not all) of the discrepancy. SCG Syracuse had 7 blue-based decks in the top 8, but decks 8, 9, 10, and 16 didn't run blue at all and two of the remaining blue-based decks (TES, which I generally think of as a BRug deck and is something that would be killed by a Brainstorm ban, and High Tide, which I hope we can agree is not the sort of blue deck we're talking about) aren't really part of this discussion. It wouldn't surprise me if (for example) the 16th place Elves player picked up one of his losses to another nonblue deck that specializes in killing small creatures (Jund with Toxic Deluge, maybe?) or something like Belcher or Dredge that just races them but probably loses easily to hate or Force of Will. Similarly, how many Death and Taxes or Painter players did the Elves player knock out of contention in the X-1 bracket due to having a lopsided matchup there? How many of the Maverick player's losses were due to the deck being fairly soft to combo? The last point is particularly important when discussing both the number and finish distribution of blue decks: if you can run Force of Will and sideboard coutnermagic to protect yourself from fast combo, why wouldn't you do it? If you think that the ability to fight combo effectively game one doesn't enter into someone's decision when choosing a deck, especially (again) an expensive one, I'd like to know why.

Lt. Quattro

08-14-2014, 09:48 AM

menace13

08-14-2014, 09:58 AM

Abrupt decay was made to answer counterbalance.
And Delvers. But then a Delver deck took it :/

sjmcc13

08-14-2014, 11:01 AM

And Delvers. But then a Delver deck took it :/ There was already enough answers to Delver.
also the Delver deck uses it because BUG Delver is basically a goodcards.deck, and it is a good card in the decks colors.

I honestly am starting to think that all this our cry about brainstorm is simple because the format is shifting towards goodcard.decks, and people (or the blue haters at least) need something to blame as lists start to shift towards the best cards in each category and little else.

Yes, I would always consider a blue splash for brainstorm, just like in vintage I always consider Black for Demonic and Vamp, but that does not make it a blue deck. Brainstorm does not cause heavy blue decks, FoW does. The dominance of blue decks has more to do with people wanting to have a chance to fight the bombs that they can not allow to be resolved. The best way to fight allot of these cards is with counter magic, which puts people who want as good a game against combo into blue.

The problem is Wizards has been making to many bomb cards, and not enough cards to support non good stuff decks.
Remember when Phage was printed, they obviously considered "cheat" into play methods for her, but Grisslebrand is as bad once in play and has nothing to stop or limit these effects. Emrakul, is hard to re-animate (there are what 4 cards that can reanimate at instant speed in the game), but has no other enter play limitations.

Blue was always a good support color with weak or non-aggressive creaturers. Delver is a mistake because it is a cheap aggressive creature in blue, a 1 mana 3 power evasion is too good, and they have no excuse for not realizing this would be a heavily played card in formats where instants are still good, as opposed to the creature and PW fest that is standard. Sure in draft if will not flip as reliable, but once you go beyound draft its effects become obvious.

What is needed is the unbanning and creation of new cards that will either re-envigorate old decks or spark new origional decks. We need more caards for Tribal, themed and synergy based decks, and less cards for goodcard.decks because those just converge into a handful of lists over time. But wizards is not making these cards, they are afraid of "breaking standard" and their few new cards from the for legacy sets are almost all useless with a couple broken cards for the goodcard.decks to use, and little else.

Koby

08-14-2014, 02:15 PM

words

The presumption is that WotC cares about Legacy to make an attempt to fix it. They don't. They would rather atrophy the format and ignore it. Any attempt to address it shines a spotlight against it, and reveals the cancer they have created (WotC's view). Ponder, Delver, Snapcaster have formed a trinity of cards that has shifted the balance heavily towards blue-centric decks. Brainstorm is now the creme-de-la-creme of this blue-centric dominance. Either we get incidental new cards that can attack the dominance, or the format begins to unravel from its staleness; or else ban Brainstorm and let the shock stir up new decks.

lordofthepit

08-14-2014, 02:53 PM

Since when did frequent bannings become a good thing? Is this a rhetorical strategy employed by Modern apologists? That format has some things going for it, but the aggressive ban policy is not one of them. If your girlfriend hits you whenever she sees something she doesn't like, it doesn't mean she cares about you, it means things are fucked up and you should get out.

I agree that Brainstorm is the most powerful and ubiquitous card in the format, and I wouldn't mind seeing these strategies taken down slightly, but that doesn't mean the format is degenerate by any stretch of the imagination. Mutavault in Standard saw long stretches where pretty much ever deck ran it, and that card contributed far less to deck diversity in its format than Brainstorm does to deck diversity in Legacy. But no one ever seriously called for it to get banned because it did not do anything inherently degenerate, and I doubt this is because Wizards doesn't care about Standard.

LOLWut

08-14-2014, 02:55 PM

You keep making it sound like that these less often played decks are the best decks. And that players aren't playing the best decks because card availability, preference, and misinformation. All of which blatantly undermine the community collective of information sharing that forums and groups represent. Maybe if this was before the internet you would be right. To you it is as if these decks are secretly the best decks or at least on par with the most widely played ones. They're not. They're pet decks. Otherwise they would be far and away the most popular choices to take down events. The argument that not enough people are playing these decks actually serves to illustrate the flaws of not playing Brainstorm. The card that most of the player base is gravitating towards. I believe it that is because they aren't as good. You believe they are and it's due to ignorance, and card availability. Hope that was simple enough for you?

What did you make of the dozens of TMI charts, from the recent Internet age, showing decks that have win percentages and average finishes on par with highly-played and top tier decks being played by low amounts of people week after week? Some of these decks were recent creations; some had been around for a very long time.

Deck choice is a decision made. The players choose to play their non brainstorm decks same as some players choose to play with Brainstorm decks. The premise that most players didnt sleeve up the best decks because they dont have access to the cards is a lie. Does everyone have every card? No. Are all pros playing decks they dont want to play in GPs? No. If these other decks were so much better and outperforming as data from 2010-2011 suggests. Which, mind you was at a time when Brainstorm hovered around 50%. Then clearly those decks would have been popularized by now as strong finishes were racked up in events consistently. Reading GP top 8 profiles, how many of the players were wishing they played another deck? Does availability play some part? yes. A large part? I would wager no.

Did you read my examples? The point was not that underrated decks from 2010-11 should be top tier decks now (although some are, like Thresh), but as evidence that even in the Internet age, whether it's because not everyone is a Spike, or because the deck has expensive cards, or because many people don't like the decks, or because there is lack of awareness about the deck's strength, it is very possible for strong decks to be underplayed. This is not an argument that Brainstorm isn't amazing, or that Brainstorm decks don't make up a large percentage of the best decks. I really want to know how you can look at charts and charts of data, in a time with the community collective of information in full swing, showing low amounts of people playing decks with excellent win percentages repeatedly, and say that there's no way that there are currently very strong decks played by few.

menace13

08-14-2014, 03:23 PM

I really want to know how you can look at charts and charts of data, in a time with the community collective of information in full swing, showing low amounts of people playing decks with excellent win percentages repeatedly, and say that there's no way that there are currently very strong decks played by few.
Because if they were really strong they would be crushing. They are a blip on the radar. Theyre not as strong as the data would lead you to believe. How do we know that the few players who play those decks arent overperforming because of skill with their preferred deck? How do we know those decks are as a solid choice in any meta through generalized rounds of games as decks with Brainstorm? Only thing we can know now is Brainstorm decks are out numbering the other supposed "strong" decks. Everyone recognizes the broken interactions of most winning decks and they flock to those decks. If the other decks were as good then then we would see surges of large numbers of players piloting those lists. But they dont, do they?

Did you read my examples?
What am i to take form those examples? Guess work made by you as to why those decks arent played. And it's every excuse you could possibly muster except that theyre not as good? Your example shows a meta where Merfolk was the most played, as a result Goblins became the 2nd most played further resulting in Rock decks having good percentages if paired against Merfolk and Goblins.

Aggro_zombies

08-14-2014, 03:56 PM

ESG

08-14-2014, 04:00 PM

Since when did frequent bannings become a good thing? Is this a rhetorical strategy employed by Modern apologists? That format has some things going for it, but the aggressive ban policy is not one of them.

Frequent bannings and an aggressive ban policy are not what people are asking for. It's been a really long time since the last ban (Mental Misstep in 2011). That's longer than any other point in the format's history. By my count, there are at least two cards that should have been banned but weren't (Griselbrand and True-Name Nemesis), and that's why we're in the predicament we are in now. I think part of the problem is that WOTC has shifted the Banned and Restricted announcement dates to coincide with set releases; thus, it's easier to take a hands-off approach and say, "Let's see if these new cards fix things," rather than actually addressing the issue head-on. I personally would not vote to ban Brainstorm, but I would vote to ban a few other cards.

Lt. Quattro

08-14-2014, 04:09 PM

The presumption is that WotC cares about Legacy to make an attempt to fix it. They don't. They would rather atrophy the format and ignore it. Any attempt to address it shines a spotlight against it, and reveals the cancer they have created (WotC's view). Ponder, Delver, Snapcaster have formed a trinity of cards that has shifted the balance heavily towards blue-centric decks. Brainstorm is now the creme-de-la-creme of this blue-centric dominance. Either we get incidental new cards that can attack the dominance, or the format begins to unravel from its staleness; or else ban Brainstorm and let the shock stir up new decks.

They still do make cards to change up legacy, abrupt decay was made to be an answer for Counterbalance and Mental Misstep was made to be played in non blue decks to help them fight combo and brainstorm decks.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/161b

Force of Will has long been thought of as a card that helps keep combination decks in check in Legacy and Vintage. However, it doesn't directly help decks that aren't playing blue. One idea that was floated was creating a similar card that could be played in nonblue decks. When Phyrexian mana was designed, it was an opportunity to create such a card. R&D wanted a card that could help fight combination decks, and could also fight blue decks by countering cards such as Brainstorm.

Then they went ahead and made Mental Misstep blue, giving blue players the option of paying life or mana for it, and adding yet another 4 of card to pitch to force of will. :eek:

Here is another article wizards tell us about how they use commander/planechase products to print cards for legacy.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/269

Naturally the blue cards they print for legacy are home runs:

Flusterstorm
True-name Nemesis
Baleful Strix
Shardless Agent

IMO most of the non blue cards they make that are intended for legacy are hot garbage.

Restore

Restore is an acceleration spell or Wasteland recursion in Legacy, but it can also let you use one of your opponents' lands against him or her in Commander, or return something like Gaea's Cradle to the battlefield.

Unexpectedly Absent

you can't Swords to Plowshares a Jace, the Mind Sculptor. Batterskull's token can easily be killed, but the 'skull itself has been immune from most of the same removal... until now. This kind of diversity makes the card an interesting choice, especially since it is hard to make an argument for cards like Disenchant in the main deck. Unexpectedly Absent may not be better than a large number of cards in every situation, but often in Legacy being the second best in a dozen different situations can be better than the best in just one.

While keeping a person off of a card for a few turns requires a hefty commitment of mana, it's easier to get much more by using one of the key factors of Legacy against your opponent—all of the shuffling. Because of the fetch land/dual land mana base, as well as cards like Stoneforge Mystic, people are often shuffling their library. Putting a Jace, the Mind Sculptor on top of an opponent's library in response to a fetch land will force the opponent to shuffle him back into the library. Putting a Tarmogoyf on top of an opponent's library in the upkeep can not only force the opponent to redraw it, but keeps his or her Delver from flipping for one more turn. Or, you can respond to a Shardless Agent and either put a card on the bottom of its owner's library or control exactly what card he or she will be getting. It's this kind of diversity that sets the card up to be a real player in the format.

Wizards seriously thought people were going to use this card to keep delver from flipping, use it in response to the the card advantage machine known as Shardless Agent and to pay :6: to shuffle away a Jace in response to a fetch land.

lyracian

08-14-2014, 04:21 PM

Ponder, Delver, Snapcaster have formed a trinity of cards that has shifted the balance heavily towards blue-centric decks. Brainstorm is now the creme-de-la-creme of this blue-centric dominance. Either we get incidental new cards that can attack the dominance, or the format begins to unravel from its staleness; or else ban Brainstorm and let the shock stir up new decks.
The Trinity makes Blue too powerful but why ban Brainstorm? Surely the problem is Blue having what it never had - efficient creatures. Swatting the Insect (or Taigo) would have just as much impact on changing the format.

Lysandros

08-14-2014, 04:25 PM

Brainstorm is obviously really good, but we're not Modern here, so I hate all the "ban it!" talk. Brainstorm fits Blue's color scheme, so I don't really have a problem with it, despite it's power level. Delver of Secrets and True-Name Nemesis and Snapcaster Mage don't fit Blue's color scheme however. Protection is generally White's realm, cheap agro is Green's, and graveyard recursion is Red or Black. Even from a flavor perspective, none seem to fit. Merfolk may be Blue, and a wizard's experiment-gone-wrong feels Blue, but there's no reason True-Name had to be a merfolk, and transformation into an animal / insect feels awfully Green to me. Would anybody really care if TNN was White, or Delver was Green, or Snapcaster was Red / Black? Sure, Blue could still adopt them, but there are greater costs to doing so, which would tone the power level down a bit.

I'm with the people advocating better cards in the other colors. Green and Black have card draw in their past...the original Ponder was Green (I forget the Alpha card), and Sylvan Library allows for card draw at the expense of life. Black's long been able to trade life for cards ("Greatness at any cost..."). Red having the looting ability is a start, as is the Chanda, Pyromaster 0 ability -- that fits Red's theme of using things fast and furiously -- or even Cascade feels very "Red" as a mechanic. White's realm has long been hosing the other colors and value creatures to create virtual advantages. More effects like that are great.

In short: no need to ban Brainstorm. Just keep Blue (and all colors) in it's proper lane, and print some more efficiency engines for the other colors that fit their themes.

LeoCop 90

08-14-2014, 04:25 PM

I agree with ESG that Griselbrand and true name nemesis should be banned. I don't complain about brainstorm or show and tell .... brainstorm is the most powerful card in the format but it is just a cantrip, show and tell is broken only in conjunction with other cards (mainly griselbrand).

True name is just an error. A stupid card with a stupid wording, that now lets blue have the best creature in magic. And either it invalidates non blue aggro-strategies by being a 3 mana impossible to deal with attacker and blocker, or it forces to play suboptimal cards to deal with it (golgari charm, serra avenger in death and taxes, and so on). I know it is not extremely played, but it is just a wrong card to me.

Griselbrand is what let show and tell be really unbeatable. When they drop emrakul or another creature with show and tell, there are still possible answers. hen they drop griselbrand , no matter which answers you have, they just draw thousand cards and win.

Koby

08-14-2014, 04:52 PM

What did you make of the dozens of TMI charts, from the recent Internet age, showing decks that have win percentages and average finishes on par with highly-played and top tier decks being played by low amounts of people week after week? Some of these decks were recent creations; some had been around for a very long time.

Those articles granted a look at the entire tournament's worth of data. If we had access to every tournament's all decks, then it may make an argument for one conclusion or the other. Without this data, we're left guessing what's at fault.

I hope to have some metagame analysis for LA's best attended regular tournament (on the regular ~ 6 weeks for 6 round event with Top 8) coming out in the next few days.

Richard Cheese

08-14-2014, 06:18 PM

The Trinity makes Blue too powerful but why ban Brainstorm? Surely the problem is Blue having what it never had - efficient creatures. Swatting the Insect (or Taigo) would have just as much impact on changing the format.

Yup. If you really want to shake up the format you give Delver the axe. It's at the crux of three of the format's best decks, and I think it's the single worst card for encouraging same-y-ness IMO. Next on my list would probably be Deathrite, because a super flexible auto-4-of that shits all over the second best source of card advantage outside cantrips just stifles too many strategies.

Phoenix Ignition

08-14-2014, 06:24 PM

Unexpectedly Absent

Wizards seriously thought people were going to use this card to keep delver from flipping, use it in response to the the card advantage machine known as Shardless Agent and to pay :6: to shuffle away a Jace in response to a fetch land.

I don't think the card does what you think it does, Unexpectedly Absent. You can pay :w::w: to flip a jace in response to a fetch. The only problem is that most problematic creatures in legacy can't be hit by conventional means anymore and stop the threat, and even hitting a jace isn't that awesome since planeswalkers have haste. Making the card :w::w: also means it only fits in a small number of blue decks, so it doesn't see play.

AggroControl

08-14-2014, 07:03 PM

In short: no need to ban Brainstorm. Just keep Blue (and all colors) in it's proper lane, and print some more efficiency engines for the other colors that fit their themes.

The real problem is that 20 years on and with extraordinary evidence in front of them WotC still does not understand the game that they publish and how it works. They don't understand (yet) that card selection and advantage are the most important factors in play, particularly as the competitions get shorter and people naturally see fewer cards before they are effectively defeated.

The way to fix the problem is to give all colors similar chances to look at and select their cards. Then blue can have it's fast creatures, like everybody else, and the eternal formats (and occasionally Standard) do not get blown all to hell in the process.

The color wheel should differentiate by one major strength at this point:

Blue - Denial of played spells.
Black - Denial of cards in the hand.
Red - Fast damage via Instants and Sorceries.
Green - Efficient creatures with a bigger body than you'd expect for the cost.
White - Efficient removal that is hard to deny.

Everybody should have access to decent creatures along the curve. Everybody should have access to good abilities to filter and gain card advantage. The idea of splashing blue for predictability in seeing and drawing cards should be laughable on the face of it. If that's blue's strength then the meta will inevitably twist towards at least splashing blue to gain the one thing that is most important in high level Magic play. That's where we are now and have cyclically been at least two thirds of the time that Legacy has existed.

That's where Vintage has been forever.

That's where Modern will inevitably go in the future despite the throat lock on blue card selection and advantage that WotC has tried to put on the format.

Brainstorm is going to need to be banned in the short term while WotC figures out what to do with the Eternal formats. Banning Delver might also be a good move but without Brainstorm the blue lists that play him will come back some towards the pack. Banning TNN is a joke. I hate blue in organized play due to the dominance that it creates at high levels of play and even I realize that TNN is something that can be adapted to and managed in any number of ways that the format is already exploring with vigor. Banning Jace the Mind Sculptor would just be a nod in the general direction of "don't print ridiculously OP cards from now on R&D. I mean really!"

TsumiBand

08-14-2014, 07:10 PM

The problem with saying that WotC "doesn't understand their own game" is actually the opposite of the Blue problem. WotC understand the game; what you may not understand is their decisions regarding Blue's role in the game, which, for *some reason*, they have articulated as being the color that "is better at Magic". In TLDR style, MaRo et al have gone on record as saying that Blue gets to "hack the game" while the other colors just "play the game". The problem is not them not getting it - they *definitely* get it, and they do not give a shit because they have decided that it's okay for Blue to be the 'meta-magic' color.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-14-2014, 08:12 PM

Very good points AggroControl and Tsumi! I'm araid both of you are right somehow.
It stil surprises me that in this game of cards selecton, random factors, and huge wizards battling with powerful beasts (or whatever), WotC was so one-sided when they decided who gets what. I think that no later than what, Urza Saga, they must have realised that some aspects are more important than the others. Say CA and CQ is definitely more important than Banding and stuff. Yet the were/are still so adamant about their application of "color wheel" and such stuff that clearly doesn't a place in game where each side-to-choose should be similarly good. It's like giving one rook more to the white (which is blue) and then act surprised when ppl don't choose black.

It's also about power of creatures, and frankly, for the first decade they mostly sucked. Guess how many of them gets played in non-rotating formats... when the creatures need to deal 20 dmg and they are mostly 1/1 @ cmc1, and 2/2 for 2, etc. it doesn't take a genius to realize that WoG is a pretty powerful spell. I know that there's a trouble of scaling if you'll start with a 3/3 vanilla for :2: as a base (or 2/2 with an ability for the same price), and then of course something something power creep cmc2 4/5, but I think you got my point. Not that it matters, those 22 years cannot be undone and MtG cannot be remade from scratch. But back to topic: yeah, all colors need creatures, it's the very basic of game. All of them need some kind of CA and CQ engines/tools, unless the players gravitate towards the color that has those tools. It shouldn't be the same, lets make it colorful and flavourful, but give those tools to the colors. Then lets each color have its own strong themes (recursion, burn, counterspells, removal, etc.), but denying the tools to affects its draws turns them into secondary choices and suboptimal colors. It's similar as to not giving them creatures.

Which reminds me of an anecdotal story I heard in our lgs. Dudes played Revised minimaster on some GP. On of them opened a pack and got there a Deathlace in rare sot, some basic land and a Wall of Air as his only creature. Go figure.

Lord Seth

08-15-2014, 12:21 AM

The real problem is that 20 years on and with extraordinary evidence in front of them WotC still does not understand the game that they publish and how it works. They don't understand (yet) that card selection and advantage are the most important factors in play, particularly as the competitions get shorter and people naturally see fewer cards before they are effectively defeated.Except they obviously do understand the power of card selection and advantage, which is why the cards that do that have been weakened so much. I mean, card draw has been nerfed so hard in Standard that Divination is considered good enough to be in a Pro Tour-winning deck.

Of course, the nerfing of card draw is what Legacy players always seem to complain about in regards to Standard...

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 03:21 AM

Except they obviously do understand the power of card selection and advantage, which is why the cards that do that have been weakened so much. I mean, card draw has been nerfed so hard in Standard that Divination is considered good enough to be in a Pro Tour-winning deck.

Of course, the nerfing of card draw is what Legacy players always seem to complain about in regards to Standard...

Standard comparable to Legacy?
I mean, shouldn't there be more playable non-blue CQ tools available in Legacy pool? And I'm asking seriously, this isn't any kind of troll attempt. also, I'd love if ppl won't scream in panic "blue would absorb those spells!" I don'tbelieve it's true, it has enough CQ effects as it is, e.g. I cannot imagine Strom.dec including any Natural Selection or similar green stuff; the deck has all the Brainstorms, Ponders and Preordains that it needs. Imho other colors should get some of those tools to not remain in spinster bracket.

I'm not sure about black, as one mana draw two with some life loss attached is still pretty overpowered. Maybe something similar to Bitterblossom (in manacost and upkeep effect), but yeah Bob For Poor is not exactly thrilling and necessary.
Same goes for white, I'm not sure what could be done except for glueing scry or similar effect on cheap removal. Maybe some kind of Scroll Rack, idk.
Red and green are easy, otoh. Red should get reaonable looting (but as long as the best one isn't played anywhere else than in Dredge, maybe it's not the best design), while green could use some creatures with etb:scry or etb:draw or w/e effect. Otho, it has got Mirri's Guile, it has got Glimpse of N., it has got Visionary, the whole Tress archetype, etc. Maybe we already got the tools, but only are lazy to explore the new horizons?

Dice_Box

08-15-2014, 03:25 AM

Black has what you asked for in Phyrexian Arena.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 03:33 AM

Black has what you asked for in Phyrexian Arena.
I was thinking about something less EDH, more Legacy. Idk why I wrote Bitterblossom when I was clearly thinking Arena (or that cmc3 Enchantment Creature - Bob), but yeah, maybe I should wake up before writing. :laugh:

Zombie

08-15-2014, 04:24 AM

AggroControl

08-15-2014, 10:35 AM

Black has what you asked for in Phyrexian Arena.

CA and CQ can't be turn 4 propositions. They can't even be turn 3 propositions. In Legacy the game can be almost over based on what you have seen by turn 3.

The RUG and BUG and Miracles lists all have 8 ways to gain CQ at no cost in terms of CA on turn 1. That's why blue is out of control right now. It's why blue has been out of control for most the existence of Legacy. No other color has the ability to look at cards turn 1 and fix in a big way.

The thing is that all the other colors would kill to have on-color access to the "bad" cantrips, like Sleight of Hand, Serum Visions and Portent. Having access to options like that would go a long way towards fixing the consistency problems that non-blue lists have. If we restricted blue to just those options it would still be the strongest color in the wheel and it would still be played by people trying to get consistency.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 10:44 AM

CA and CQ can't be turn 4 propositions. The thing is that all the other colors would kill to have on-color access to the "bad" cantrips, like Sleight of Hand, Serum Visions and Portent.
Yeah, this. I still think that instead of Ponder-like spells, the other colors should get something more in line with "their position and role considering color pie".
Magma Jet is fine. So is Infernal Contract. Sylvan Library ain't bad. But those are etiehr weak for Legacy and/or they don't do anything before turn3 unless accelerated. This is... maybe not exactly wrong, but consideringblue's effects, it's laughable how very few consistency tools are in other colors.

Lysandros

08-15-2014, 10:47 AM

btm10

08-15-2014, 10:57 AM

CA and CQ can't be turn 4 propositions. They can't even be turn 3 propositions. In Legacy the game can be almost over based on what you have seen by turn 3.

The RUG and BUG and Miracles lists all have 8 ways to gain CQ at no cost in terms of CA on turn 1. That's why blue is out of control right now. It's why blue has been out of control for most the existence of Legacy. No other color has the ability to look at cards turn 1 and fix in a big way.

The thing is that all the other colors would kill to have on-color access to the "bad" cantrips, like Sleight of Hand, Serum Visions and Portent. Having access to options like that would go a long way towards fixing the consistency problems that non-blue lists have. If we restricted blue to just those options it would still be the strongest color in the wheel and it would still be played by people trying to get consistency.

You realize that this is never going to happen, right? Wizards isn't going to print card-neutral library manipulation in colors other than blue or black, and there's very limited interest in playing the black manipulation. Night's Whisper is played in Vintage; its absence from Legacy is sort of puzzling to me, as is the fact this Bob isn't widely played in Legacy. There's likely a few competitive decks that use these cards out there that are currently not well-tuned enough to reach the top tier, so I think some of the stagnation is driven by a lack of successful deckbuilding, but that's really beside the point.

I really think that if people are this upset by the fact that most decks that do well run blue that they would better served by playing a different format, because blue's strength in Legacy isn't going anywhere in the absence of mass bannings.

Zombie

08-15-2014, 10:57 AM

Green's theme should be tied to creatures / land. Sort of like Domri and Courser of Kruphix, but obviously they'd need to be a bit better than that to make it into Legacy. I'd also like to see WOTC explore the "fight" mechanic more as a means of giving Green some removal. Sort of like Prey Upon, but instant speed at one CMC.

I'm rather irritated by it, actually, because green "draw" can basically never hit into more draw, so you have to lucksack into the next draw spell again. At worst, it gets sent to the bottom of your damn deck in those absurd reveal type effects. It's annoying, stifling. Sorcery-speed raw draw a la Harmonize feels just fine in green to me (and fits great with the contemplative druid branch of green flavor - it's not all monsters and hunters and stuff) maybe do the "at least GG in mana cost" thing they do to black cards to those, too.

btm10

08-15-2014, 11:00 AM

I'm rather irritated by it, actually, because green "draw" can basically never hit into more draw, so you have to lucksack into the next draw spell again. At worst, it gets sent to the bottom of your damn deck in those absurd reveal type effects. It's annoying, stifling. Sorcery-speed raw draw a la Harmonize feels just fine in green to me (and fits great with the contemplative druid branch of green flavor - it's not all monsters and hunters and stuff) maybe do the "at least GG in mana cost" thing they do to black cards to those, too.

I don't think that green draw/manipulation effects need a boost, they just need to be played. Jund can abuse the shit out of Sylvan Library + Bob, but Sylvan and Mirri's Guile are fine on their own and are inexplicably not widely played. I'm glad that BUG decks are finally picking Sylvan up.

Red and White really get the short end of the stick here, but something like discard first looting as was mentioned several pages back seems about right for red, though it doesn't help combo too much. I don't see a non-broken way to give something to White other than a Land Tax-style effect.

TsumiBand

08-15-2014, 11:01 AM

Rather that looting, I'd rather see Red explore more abilities like what Chandra, Pyromaster offers. That fits Red's theme pretty well I think (sort of "here it is, but you have to use it now" type effects). Something comparable to Brainstorm for Red:

Sorcery - CMC: R - Exile the top 3 cards of your library. You may cast them this turn (or you may cast any one of them this turn...or one + some sacrifice to cast the others).

Yeah, that's busted, but not as busted as Brainstorm. Blue could use it I guess, but this isn't the greatest with counters, and it requires you to tap out on your own turn to make effective use of it. It would be nuts with certain combo decks, but that's fine with me, I'd rather combo get a boost than Delver decks. This could also help make R/G aggro somewhat viable again by "reloading" once the hand / board is empty.

Or even Gamble type effects, since that's part of Red's scheme (exile the top 3 cards. Your opponent chooses one at random. Put that in your hand and the remaining cards in your graveyard / exile).

Green's theme should be tied to creatures / land. Sort of like Domri and Courser of Kruphix, but obviously they'd need to be a bit better than that to make it into Legacy. I'd also like to see WOTC explore the "fight" mechanic more as a means of giving Green some removal. Sort of like Prey Upon, but instant speed at one CMC.

Black's got plenty of draw, that's not the problem there.

White is tricky. I'm not sure what fits the theme. Perhaps Scry. The problem with White is the ease with which Blue adopts it.

I could get behind some Gamble effects, perhaps - in RtR there was that :r::g: Instant that lets you search for 3 creatures with different names, then you put a random one into your hand and shuffle the rest back. But that R for 3 cards, even if they're exiled EOT - that's just an Ancestral in every combo deck that would play Red, or would play Red if it could draw 3 for 1 mana. You'd need some kind of a delimiter on what kinds of spells could be played.

Sometimes I wish that there were a way for colors to search for their 'pocket' cards more effectively. Like if Red could more easily have something that just drew/searched for burn spells and wouldn't have some weird rules fuckery built-in that some combo player could take advantage of -- like it can't just be "search for an instant or sorcery" or "search for a card that says 'damage'" or whatever because both examples are easily turned into non-burn spells. I almost (almost) wish that there could retroactively be a subtype that could be attached to cards that would distinguish burn from draw from removal, but that's annoying as shit. I don't think there's a way to do it without creating a verbose POS card that no one wants in their deck.

AggroControl

08-15-2014, 11:02 AM

You realize that this is never going to happen, right? Wizards isn't going to print card-neutral library manipulation in colors other than blue or black, and there's very limited interest in playing the black manipulation. Night's Whisper is played in Vintage; its absence from Legacy is sort of puzzling to me, as is the fact this Bob isn't widely played in Legacy. There's likely a few competitive decks that use these cards out there that are currently not well-tuned enough to reach the top tier, so I think some of the stagnation is driven by a lack of successful deckbuilding, but that's really beside the point.

I really think that if people are this upset by the fact that most decks that do well run blue that they would better served by playing a different format, because blue's strength in Legacy isn't going anywhere in the absence of mass bannings.

Ok, so here's my take on this. WotC has already violated the color scheme numerous times in the past. The most recent example was Delver of Secrets, which gave blue an under-costed beater with evasion, something they were never supposed to have in the overall scheme (and don't start with Serendib Efreet because it wasn't considered a tier 1 beater even in the single format of the mid to late 90's). Delver is the *best* early beater in Eternal magic at the moment. Blue has the *best* under-costed beater in the game. So the color wheel has already been thrown out the window by WotC. There's no reason they can't compensate by giving other colors under-costed CA and CQ.

Similarly, TNN is one of the best shroud creatures in the game. This is also a green characteristic. TNN should have been :1::g::g:.

It's hypocritical of them to give blue access to things that are not in it's supposed realm of play and deny the other colors similar advantages.

btm10

08-15-2014, 11:10 AM

Ok, so here's my take on this. WotC has already violated the color scheme numerous times in the past. The most recent example was Delver of Secrets, which gave blue an under-costed beater with evasion, something they were never supposed to have in the overall scheme (and don't start with Serendib Efreet because it wasn't considered a tier 1 beater even in the single format of the mid to late 90's). Delver is the *best* early beater in Eternal magic at the moment. Blue has the *best* under-costed beater in the game. So the color wheel has already been thrown out the window by WotC. There's no reason they can't compensate by giving other colors under-costed CA and CQ.

Similarly, TNN is one of the best shroud creatures in the game. This is also a green characteristic. TNN should have been :1::g::g:.

It's hypocritical of them to give blue access to things that are not in it's supposed realm of play and deny the other colors similar advantages.

In TNN's case, protection is usually a white characteristic, but I strongly believe that everything about TNN was deliberate on Wizards' part - they wanted to print a card for Legacy that would make both RUG Thresh worse so that they wouldn't have to ban anything, and they wanted to slow everything down to improve the positioning of the midrange goodstuff decks they like so much. They succeeded.

Delver is a product of their attempts to give every color aggressive creatures for Standard/Limited play - where they've basically abandoned the color wheel aside from a few very distinctive features for each color - and I seriously doubt that they even considered the impact on Legacy and Vintage.

rufus

08-15-2014, 11:23 AM

Rather that looting, I'd rather see Red explore more abilities like what Chandra, Pyromaster offers. That fits Red's theme pretty well I think (sort of "here it is, but you have to use it now" type effects). Something comparable to Brainstorm for Red...

I think there's already a 'create a bad card thread'. Speaking in general terms, I would definitely like to see more and better non-blue cards that interact with the stack, or with card quality. (I'd also like to see delver die in a fire for being a flip card ...)

... The problem with White is the ease with which Blue adopts it.

That seems like more "blue is so strong that it justifies keeping the other colors weaker" silliness.

Lysandros

08-15-2014, 11:27 AM

@btm10 -- I agree that TNN was a deliberate attempt to boost Midrange. What bothers me (and all of us I think) is that they accomplish the same thing by sticking to the color wheel and making it cost WW1 and having it be a Cat subtype (or whatever).

@rufus - Yes, Chandra is bad, but that 0 ability is a fit for Red card draw / filtration. Surely some variation of that could be explored in greater detail to give Red what we're talking about here. RE: White, I'm not sue what fits it's color wheel. What has white had for draw / filtration historically? Also, it's just a discussion...if you don't like other ideas, offer up different / better ones. That's the whole point of the conversation.

AggroControl

08-15-2014, 11:32 AM

In TNN's case, protection is usually a white characteristic, but I strongly believe that everything about TNN was deliberate on Wizards' part - they wanted to print a card for Legacy that would make both RUG Thresh worse so that they wouldn't have to ban anything, and they wanted to slow everything down to improve the positioning of the midrange goodstuff decks they like so much. They succeeded.

This may be true, although I see many faster lists than midrange making top 8's at this point. Some of them even use TNN as their finisher.

Delver is a product of their attempts to give every color aggressive creatures for Standard/Limited play - where they've basically abandoned the color wheel aside from a few very distinctive features for each color - and I seriously doubt that they even considered the impact on Legacy and Vintage.

I don't buy this at all. They knew Delver would flip in Threshold type lists and give blue a very under-costed beater in an archetype that already had other good under-costed creatures available to it. They knew that RUG type lists would now have a critical mass of creatures and even some interesting options to tailor the list a specific way. Nimble Mongoose and Goyf were a strong 8-pack for the archetype but neither of them did immediate damage and put that kind of pressure on the opponent alongside the disruption. Delver of Secrets is the perfect complement to the list because it is hard to block and it does lots of damage early on. If it eats a bolt the opponent is about even but if it eats a plow they are way behind because they needed that plow for Goyf a few turns down the road.

btm10

08-15-2014, 11:47 AM

@btm10 -- I agree that TNN was a deliberate attempt to boost Midrange. What bothers me (and all of us I think) is that they accomplish the same thing by sticking to the color wheel and making it cost WW1 and having it be a Cat subtype (or whatever).

The difference is that 1UU is playable in many Legacy decks, whereas 1WW only has a home in Death and Taxes.

This may be true, although I see many faster lists than midrange making top 8's at this point. Some of them even use TNN as their finisher.

The only decks faster than midrange that run TNN is UWR Delver, which is hardly a dedicated tempo deck, and in BUG Delver lists, which are even less tempo-y (look at Rich Shay's list that runs Sylvan Library...and Jace). It's rarely seen as 1-of in RUG Delver, but that's as a response to other people's TNNs, and makes the deck way less aggressive and tempo-oriented because it needs to support a 3 mana creature.

I don't buy this at all. They knew Delver would flip in Threshold type lists and give blue a very under-costed beater in an archetype that already had other good under-costed creatures available to it. They knew that RUG type lists would now have a critical mass of creatures and even some interesting options to tailor the list a specific way. Nimble Mongoose and Goyf were a strong 8-pack for the archetype but neither of them did immediate damage and put that kind of pressure on the opponent alongside the disruption. Delver of Secrets is the perfect complement to the list because it is hard to block and it does lots of damage early on. If it eats a bolt the opponent is about even but if it eats a plow they are way behind because they needed that plow for Goyf a few turns down the road.

R&D has explicitly stated that they don't test for Eternal formats and don't consider the impact of new cards on them.

Lord Seth

08-15-2014, 11:59 AM

Or even Gamble type effects, since that's part of Red's scheme (exile the top 3 cards. Your opponent chooses one at random. Put that in your hand and the remaining cards in your graveyard / exile).How is that functionally any different from just "draw a card"?

I guess if the cards go into your graveyard instead of exile it's Thought Scour, but Thought Scour is basically unplayable in Legacy.

Lemnear

08-15-2014, 12:37 PM

How is that functionally any different from just "draw a card"?

I guess if the cards go into your graveyard instead of exile it's Thought Scour, but Thought Scour is basically unplayable in Legacy.

Well, Mental Note was a long time Thres.hold staple and this one can even mess with your opponent. Ponder and Delver however made those threshold-feeders less relevant :/

phazonmutant

08-15-2014, 12:40 PM

Niklas is another great example of people being rewarded for not adhering to the "blue is oppressive/overpowered" mantra.

[The same though might be true for "SCG players are just uncreative copycats"]

Everywhere you look, you will always find people complain about blue doing well in Legacy.

Seriously, man up. Instead of bitching, do something about and win a tournmanet with it. It's not like pure sophism will every get anywhere.

I will rebut with an irrefutable syllogism.
Jace, the Mind Sculptor is greater than all (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnYhG_ekoH8).
Jace, the Mind Sculptor is blue.
Therefore, blue is greater than all.

Matt, your article was nice, but as you can see it's simply wrong.

rufus

08-15-2014, 12:49 PM

@rufus - Yes, Chandra is bad, but that 0 ability is a fit for Red card draw / filtration. Surely some variation of that could be explored in greater detail to give Red what we're talking about here. RE: White, I'm not sue what fits it's color wheel. What has white had for draw / filtration historically? Also, it's just a discussion...if you don't like other ideas, offer up different / better ones. That's the whole point of the conversation.

White has stuff like Enlightened Tutor,Oblation,Truce,Mesa Enchantress, and Swans of Brynn Argol. White also gets anti-CQ/CA stuff like Balance,Spirit of the Labyrinth, and Aven Mindcensor.
So stuff like:
Whenever a single player would draw a card, each player draws a card instead.
Prevent up to 2 damage to you from a single source. Draw a card for each point of damage prevented this way
Exile any number of permanents you control. Draw a card for each permanent exiled this way.

Lord Seth

08-15-2014, 01:06 PM

Similarly, TNN is one of the best shroud creatures in the game. This is also a green characteristic. TNN should have been :1::g::g:.No, it shouldn't have. Hexproof is Blue and Green, and unblockability is Blue, not Green. Granted, being immune to damage isn't Blue at all (unless it's something like Fog Bank), but it isn't Green either. True-Name Nemesis doesn't fit in Blue, but it fits in Green even worse.

I think functional "protection from everything" is an ability that requires the full strength of every color to be used (e.g. Progenitus), so I certainly don't think True-Name Nemesis should be Blue, but putting it into Green makes even less sense than putting it into Blue. Of course, they could've easily solved the problem by simply only having True-Name Nemesis's ability work when there's multiple players. It'd be nice if a card designed for multiplayer was actually in any way better in multiplayer than a 2-player game.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 01:07 PM

I'd also like to see WOTC explore the "fight" mechanic more as a means of giving Green some removal.
yeah, that's it. I don't know what' so good about one color being completely cut of several important mechanics/possibilities, like stack interaction or creature removal, esp. in a game meant as a some kind of warfare/combat/duel. Silly. Seriously, that's silly. I am big badass hunter and bowmen who commands vast army of forest lieges. Wait what's that? A spider! A rat! A squirrel! Oh mine, what am I goig to do about it?

You realize that this is never going to happen, right? Wizards isn't going to print card-neutral library manipulation in colors other than blue or black...
And that's a mistake on WotC's part. Making their game one-sided is stupid. Its the same as giving no creatures to oneof the colors, or making unplayable product for limited. I hope they get their heads out of their asses, but I expect them to not do so, they got a long history of being ignorant. It seriously surprises me tha this game is still going on strong and I'd guess that lots of its success is based not on the brilliant design, but rather on the fact that it's the first one, it has got amazing promo, it was redesigned to appeal for the masses and has a great basic potential that not even Maro and co. can that easily mishandle.

I really think that if people are this upset by the fact that most decks that do well run blue that they would better served by playing a different format, because blue's strength in Legacy isn't going anywhere in the absence of mass bannings.
Good idea, but is it really helpful for Legacy scene?

I don't think that green draw/manipulation effects need a boost, they just need to be played.
Good cards get played.
There's nothing more than Sylvan Library in green, nothing more, unless we count Glimpse which is a very specific card with very specific limits. Also, SL gets played in multicolored midrange decks, it's not a green Ponder. It doesn't give you instanteous CQ on turn1 and in fact it does nothing before turn3. This is limiting, and there a reason why the best non-Elves green deck uses lots and lots of CA, CQ and discard type of cards that result in a deck that provides the pilot with CA and reduced variance, while it increases variance (and reduces hand size) for the opponent.
If SL is the only card for green's CQ and CA, there's hardly anything else to expect from green than be either Elves or support color. It can't stand alone, you cannot build a monocolored green deck other than Elves, as it struggles and suffers on too many fronts (stack interaction, creature removal, immediate CQ, etc.) that it's not even funny. This is a feature of the game, but I find it erroneous., especially ever since the color pie was completely shat upon by the blue's cultists in R&D.

I could get behind some Gamble effects, perhaps - in RtR there was that :r::g: Instant that lets you search for 3 creatures with different names, then you put a random one into your hand and shuffle the rest back.
You're doing it wrong. Compar this to Ponder and you'll know why.
I'm not saying how the card should like, and we don't even need four colorshifted Ponders, but what you propose is bad. It needs to be :r: or :g: and if it's limited to a card type (btw, I really hate where they went with the game in past several years: "and there are instants, lands, sorceries, creatures, artifacts and enchatments, so it's easy to rememaber, no worry, except tha there are trivbla, peniswalkers, ongoing shceme, traps, pokeballs and chippendales". Screw that, this game was so elegant before they started with this nonsense...) where was I... oh, if it's limited to "card type: creature", than at the very least make it :rg: Nevermind, it won't happen, we'll rather get a gorillionth blue remake of Sleight of Hand or Mental Note, while there will be draw fixers in red for :2::r::r::r: reading "loot2, then add another card to ante, then lose ten life, then your opponents scries2 for each Island he has".
Bah.

I think there's already a 'create a bad card thread'. Speaking in general terms, I would definitely like to see more and better non-blue cards that interact with the stack, or with card quality.
Read this man, he gots it right. Also, if not for the fact that I'd miss my Werebear and Mystic Enforcer sig, I'd have a new one right now:

(I'd also like to see delver die in a fire for being a flip card ...)

Also, this whole Lysandros' post (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?28402-Article-North-American-Defeatism-and-the-Dominance-of-Brainstorm&p=828615&viewfull=1#post828615) is pretty good.

sjmcc13

08-15-2014, 01:42 PM

No, it shouldn't have. Hexproof is Blue andthey could've easily solved the problem by simply only having True-Name Nemesis's ability work when there's multiple players. It'd be nice if a card designed for multiplayer was actually in any way better in multiplayer than a 2-player game.
I keep thinking it should be protection from everyone other then the player you chose, and you have to choose an opponent.
Or at least protection from the chosen player and yourself.
If you could not equip him TNN would not be as big a problem.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 02:45 PM

I keep thinking it should be protection from everyone other then the player you chose, and you have to choose an opponent.
Or at least protection from the chosen player and yourself.
If you could not equip him TNN would not be as big a problem.

Btw, I don't find TNN even a bit flavourful. A generic green 5/5 Pig/Pig is more flavourful than TNN. I find Erhnam Djinn more thrilling and it's more fantastic than any number of TNNs. I think it's at least partially because of TNNs stupid uniteractive design, but no matter the design, it's simply awful on many levels flavour-wise: It's a NEMESIS, yet it's a mere 3/1. It's a merfolk, man, a merfolk; does it use a scaphander when sent to deal with a terrestrial archfoe? Bah, that card is awful.

Ellomdian

08-15-2014, 03:13 PM

I love that over the course of 20 pages, this discussion devolved from the question of whether the NA meta is more myopic and encourages navel-gazing, resulting in the perspective that Legacy is defined by Brainstorms to a discussion about banning Brainstorm (and TNN TOO!!!!)

We're having the same circular arguments, and the same people are making the same points.

Here's the thing - Legacy is not 'defined' by particular cards. Legacy is 'defined' as an eternal format that does not have an arbitrary starting point. The result is that when new cards come out, it is typically very easy to determine if something is going to be 'playable' in Legacy. It has to pass certain basic gear-checks, based on the existing standards. Since the focus of R&D for the last decade or so has been to encourage player interaction (in large part by creatures) we have seen a rise in the power level of cards with that purpose, and a general decline of cards outside of it. Land destruction is not an aggressive priority, so we haven't seen a Stone Rain since 9th. Hard counter magic has progressively been neutered, and I cannot imagine Cancel ever passing the test in an environment that has access to Counterspell.

With that premise, it is easy to expect that certain 'Gold Standard' spells will come to be prevalent as a result. Most Vintage decks run at least 5 pieces of Power, and most of them dip into the restricted list for tutors as well. Also, since Blue has historically been the color concerned the most with abilities that influence consistency, it is logical to expect that as WotC de-emphasizes non-interactive components and emphasizes interactive ones, Blue is going to be the most immediate beneficiary, as in an eternal format, it has access to both the old powerful spells AND the new powerful creatures.

Given that, unless cards are banned in an attempt to handicap blue (at least with respect to the other colors) it is a given that a majority of the cards that get played will likely be blue. If the goal is 'equal representation among colors' (which, personally, sounds stupid in the context of a game and basically sounds like a weird quasi-religious goal) then they should arbitrarily affect the direction of the format. Outside of that, discussion about the 'health' of the format from a playable perspective should be limited to whether people are showing up to play. If Standard attendance numbers had not been nightmarishly impacted by the dominance of Academy, Affinity or JTMS, if people had show up in record numbers to play the same 60-card lists, I doubt WotC would have done anything.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 03:40 PM

If the goal is 'equal representation among colors' (which, personally, sounds stupid in the context of a game and basically sounds like a weird quasi-religious goal)
I'm afraid that boring gameplay experience of the same fifty spells is not what I love about Legacy, moreover blue staples for the cost of kidney do not help the format, as the 'health' of the format from a playable perspective should be limited to whether people are showing up to play; and they won't be if the gap between blue and non-blue will only increase and the prices will skyrocket and RL will stay true.
But nvm, it's definitely some kind of quasi-religious goal.

Ellomdian

08-15-2014, 04:37 PM

I'm afraid that boring gameplay experience of the same fifty spells is not what I love about Legacy

Then what DO you love about Legacy? Overwhelmingly the response from players has been that they get to play with 20 year old cards. If it's the theoretical 'openness' of the format that you love, then don't complain that the top end of the tournament scene is dominated by the best cards.

And here's the dirty secret that no one wants to admit - if you banned Brainstorm, you would have 49 spells, and numerically, whatever isn't good enough to make the cut right now would suddenly appear more. Banning brainstorm or trying to neuter blue isn't going to magically make Carnival of Souls combo Tier 1.

blue staples for the cost of kidney do not help the format

You mean like Tarmogoyf, Liliana, Wasteland, and Thoughtseize (until recently)? Complaining that blue cards are good and cost alot is a redundant argument - to be blunt, it doesn't matter if the best card is blue, green, or even white (yeeechhh) it's typically going to cost the most.

Bed Decks - while you typically make some of the most coherant arguments for why Brainstorm should be banned, it's hard to say that Legacy needs a major, externally influenced shift for any reason other than personal preference and bias until tournament attendance nose dives.

Bed Decks Palyer

08-15-2014, 04:47 PM

Then what DO you love about Legacy? Overwhelmingly the response from players has been that they get to play with 20 year old cards. If it's the theoretical 'openness' of the format that you love, then don't complain that the top end of the tournament scene is dominated by the best cards.
Well, the only 20 y/o cards played are duals, LED, FoW and... BS? Most of the old lovely cards are outdated, but this is for another discussion. Also, it quite sucks that there are so few best cards, however silly it may sound - at the end one may argue that the very word "best" implies one and only card, but... - and Legacy is not that open as it was even few years ago before several post-2009 prints.

And here's the dirty secret that no one wants to admit - if you banned Brainstorm, you would have 49 spells, and numerically, whatever isn't good enough to make the cut right now would suddenly appear more. Banning brainstorm or trying to neuter blue isn't going to magically make Carnival of Souls combo Tier 1.
you seem to argue against my proposed ban of BS. I never wrote it should be banned. Your words are futile.

You mean like Tarmogoyf, Liliana, Wasteland, and Thoughtseize (until recently)? Complaining that blue cards are good and cost alot is a redundant argument - to be blunt, it doesn't matter if the best card is blue, green, or even white (yeeechhh) it's typically going to cost the most.
Oh, please, name more of those non-blue staples. Goyf is an exception, and so is Lili. And frankly, they don't even matter, WotC may start putting them into corn flakes boxes today. You know what's the real trouble? RL cards and mostly blue duals.
I'm not saying that color balanceis that important, but one would expect that WotC woud like a balance in game of five colors, and it'll be far less annoying if there won't be the chokehold of blue staples' prices. But I may be wrong.

Bed Decks - while you typically make some of the most coherant arguments for why Brainstorm should be banned, it's hard to say that Legacy needs a major, externally influenced shift for any reason other than personal preference and bias until tournament attendance nose dives.
I never argued for BS ban. My involvement in this thread is over.