Unlocking Legacy - Updated Recommendations to the DCI

[Zach Tartell]

While ordering my playset of Hedge Troll (look out folks!) I stumbled upon this:

The article is too old for me to find the little descriptor that usually follows the title. (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/15569.html)

Kind of meh. The article's about as long as your average commercial, and about a third as entertaining. While I'm usually a fan of Chris' ('s?) articles for their in-depth analysies (what's the plural of analysis?) and reflective thought this one read more like "oh, shit! I've got an article due tomorrow. Even though there was an article written about the B&R list this month I'll just do it again, shorter, and with less constructive thought."

The discussion on the SCG site is pretty heated, though.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

While I'm usually a fan of Chris' ('s?) articles for their in-depth analysies (what's the plural of analysis?)"Chris'" is the possessive of multiple Chris. I’d give an example, but I can’t think of a situation in which it would be used. Analyses is the plural of analysis, some how.

No comment on the article yet though, haven’t gotten a chance to read it.

[Peter_Rotten]

"Chris'" is the possessive of multiple Chris. I’d give an example, but I can’t think of a situation in which it would be used. Analyses is the plural of analysis, some how.

No comment on the article yet though, haven’t gotten a chance to read it.

YES! Grammar arguments! "Chris' article" is fine. Well, wait. The article may not have been fine - I didn't read it - but saying "Chris' aricle is fine" is gramatically OK.

Jesus' cross
Jesus's cross

BTW, read that discussion. It's a classic heated inter-peen contest. A good read indeed.

[Nightmare]

I found the article to be glaringly short, and thin on content. I'm kinda dissapointed, since it's all we get this week. While I agree that decklists aren't neccessary to prove or disprove a point on the B&R list discussion, it makes for a more interesting read. Still, I'm not sure why you decided to write an update to another article two weeks after I discussed the list, and a week after the changes would have occurred. It's not the most timely article choice.

[zulander]

I thought their discussion was pretty childish, and I'd have to lean in Steve's direction with regards to the article. I too thought that a bit more content and evidence would have made it better.

[C.P.]

This article was pretty short to be able to stand on its own, and the thoughts in it was not well developed at all.

When someone says something about grim monolith being on the list for no apparent reason, I question if he saw that card in action. If you did, how can you justify the card in a format with 8 2 mana land + 3spere? Even Voltaic key becomes very good with the card.

Any other part of article does not show more then 5 minutes of speculation. anyone can just say 'I made this list and the cards was not good in it' and not show the decklist.

Quite a disappointment, overall.

[Bovinious]

Oh and about the article, there are about 10 other cards that could have been discussed for unbanning, and the price banning policy also could have been discussed. I also think these kind of articles are pointless in general because WOTC isnt really listening, if they were they woulda unbanned like 8-10 cards a while ago. The extent of their ignorance and negligence is shown by Forsythe's misconception that Land Tax somehow doesnt suck and is actually powerful, and that they havent unbanned anything in a while. So basically I think with these morons making the decisions for us, then its pretty pointless to try and sway them since they arnt even listening and are just dumb overall in this regard.

[Machinus]

As for the length, I usually write much longer articles, and I thought for this topic it would be better to keep it short and to the point to keep the message clear. This was aimed at more than just players.

The decklists thing is just irrelevant, at least for the reasons people are talking about it. I'm not going to put decks up there, because it's very hard to give that the appropriate weight. What happens is they don't serve as suggestions - they replace the actual arguments for or against bannings. People focus on the particular lists and not the potential of the cards.


I found the article to be glaringly short, and thin on content. I'm kinda dissapointed, since it's all we get this week. While I agree that decklists aren't neccessary to prove or disprove a point on the B&R list discussion, it makes for a more interesting read. Still, I'm not sure why you decided to write an update to another article two weeks after I discussed the list, and a week after the changes would have occurred. It's not the most timely article choice.

There are four updates a year, so not it's not two weeks after the changes. It's three months before, which is a realistic time frame. I was planning on giving an update to my list before for some time, so it doesn't have anything to do with your article, although I disagree with much of your discussion. I think recommending bannings is especially irresponsible.

[Nightmare]

it doesn't have anything to do with your article, although I disagree with much of your discussion. I think recommending bannings is especially irresponsible.
Irresponsible? That's either not the word you meant to use, or the most pretentious comment I've seen you make to date, I can't tell. By no means am I, nor is anyone else, responsible for the well-being of the format, so how could I be getting called out on not doing something I can't do? Makes no sense to me.

Also, you obviously missed the point of my suggestions on banning those cards. I'm not advocating that they are overpowered and deserve bannings. I'm advocating that when it comes to their B&R policy on powerful cards with hefty price tags, Wizards either adheres to it, or re-assesses it. The status quo is to ignore it, and that keeps cards like Mask banned for no good reason.

[Machinus]

I understand. I agree that the banned list should be consistent. But wizards never said they ban cards on price, so there is no problem. Mask is banned for power reasons.

[Nightmare]

I understand. I agree that the banned list should be consistent. But wizards never said they ban cards on price, so there is no problem. Mask is banned for power reasons.From the article on the 2003 split, it's apparent that both were considered. They wouldn't ban a card like Juzam, which is expensive but essentially unplayable, but they do consider the availability (and as it is directly corrolated, the price) of cards, along with the power level when they look at the effect a specific card has on the metagame. If it weren't for the rediculous erratum on Time Vault, this would probably be seen as another example - it's a powerful card that costs a bunch, which is a formula for disaster when it comes to B&R.

[Machinus]

From the article on the 2003 split, it's apparent that both were considered.

No, it isn't apparent. Forsythe never said anything related to the price of cards.

Also, it was September 2004.

[Nightmare]

Yeah, I always do that. You'd think I'd have it memorized by now.


Dominant cards that have been considered for restriction in Vintage: Here's where the list departs from what it was previously. Some cards exist at power levels that are on the brink of acceptability for even Vintage, which makes them dominant in “Type 1.5.” Worldgorger Dragon, Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, and Illusionary Mask all fit into this category. Note, too, that the power level of many of these cards, combined with their scarcity, presented a major barrier to entry to the format for many players.This is the exact text from the article. The issue is the part where he mentions "scarcity," and "barrier to entry to the format." To most of us, that's the same thing as price. I realize it's not exactly the same thing, but scarcity has a fairly profound impact on the card's price tag, and if a scarce card is seeing a lot of play, it's usually pretty expensive (see: Reset at its peak). Now, Tabernacle and Grim Tutor are nowhere near as dominant as Bazaar or Workshop were, I admit, but they are probably as played as Mask was at the time - which is to say, barely at all. This either shows that WotC has no idea what they're talking about, or that they considered the card too powerful (when mixed with its scarcity) to be left in the format. I contend that Tabernacle isn't really much different in terms of power/scarcity, and yet it's still legal. The point isn't so much that Tabernacle deserves banning as much as it is that the policy is at best inconsistant. We can at least agree to that.

[Finn]

We should all agree to that. This discussion has been a long time in coming, and it was set in motion the day he implied that anything other than a card's power was influencing the method Wizards was using to guide them. IMO that is the issue here.

[Machinus]

First of all, "scarcity" and price are not the same thing at all. Wizards has no problems with cards being expensive. On the contrary, they are happy about that because they make money selling cards. So the expense of a card is irrelevant.

What matters is print runs. At one time Wizards thought they could make a legitimate eternal format (they still keep this possibility open). The challenges to this idea were very limited printings such as unlimited rares. Anything beyond this is certainly obtainable for serious tournament players (the supposedly restricting demographic).

There are more than enough of the legal cards, with the possible exception of p3k, which does deserve some discussion. We don't know how much p3k there is, but based on the difficultyh of getting the cards, we can imagine the worst case scenario. The best default position for the DCI to take is to leave everything legal until it's actually a problem for supporting the kind of large tournaments the DCI wanted to hold. It's not a problem for the unofficial tournament scene, and it hasn't come up yet at official ones. I think it's unlikely to be a problem in the future, but regardless no problem has been demonstrated concerning scarcity so the correct policy is to leave it alone.

Another reason why these cards might stay legal is that the portal sets are frequent candidates for reprints.

[goobafish]

First of all, "scarcity" and price are not the same thing at all.

Supply and demand dictate price, therefore they are very closely related. Expense of the card is extremely relevant, because it is what causes the entry barrier. Scarcity and price, for the purpose of this discussion, are the same thing.

[Anusien]

I am quite tempted to put my thoughts on the Banned/Restricted List to paper, but I'm afraid of killing people with three weeks in a row of Banned List articles.

[TeenieBopper]

Brain on fire..

Must... lock.. thread...

Ok. Look. I'm only going to say this once. If you have any questions or rebuttals, keep them to yourself.

Oath Sucks. Ok? It's awful. Green is an awful color. Building a control deck around it doesn't make it any better. *see "Druids, Oath of" and "Psychatog" and "Junk, PT" (ok, so junk really isn't a control deck.. well, kinda) Come to think of it, building a combo deck around that color doesn't work too well either. *see "Aluren."

Know why suicide oath was winning in extended back two seasons ago? Extended does not have the following cards: Swords to plowshares, Force of Will. Believe it or not, those cards are powerful enough to be a constant presence in any metagame with the card pool they are legal in. In fact, you may play against those very cards in the next tournament you play in. Or you may even play them yourself. I need a /sarcasm tag really badly.

If you want to play the game where I name a combo, then you name one that stops it, then I name another one.. make a different thread. However, this point counterpoint thing is fucking pointless. Benzo would be moderately playable with entomb. In fact, I would probably play it. I recieve unhealthy pleasure from reanimating fatties. However, if you check my whole existance-of-cards-that-would-slightly-affect-the-extended-metagame-if-they-were-legal arguement above, you will notice that sometimes a big ass fatty isn't that hard to deal with. Also, Tormod's crypt isn't avalable to play in extended. You know, those things you have because you didn't want to lose to Dragon (yet you did anyhow, didn't you?)

Please stop drawing conjecture from extended. It's different cardpools. Ok? We're still more like type 1 than extended. Another thing: The bannings of replenish, skullclamp, etc just because they were banned in extended. Not too bringht. They missed survival of the goddamn fittest. No worries though, it's not like anyone played those cards in old 1.5 anyhow.

This brings us full circle to Oath of Druids, and the fact that green sucks. I know an aggro deck can't handle a turn 2 fatty. Know what? That aggro deck is probably playing green. They weren't going to win anyhow.

Mind twist is a very swingy card. In the absence of good acceleration, it's not that great turn 1. However, turn 4, it empties your opponent's hand. That's pretty frickin' swingy. Of course, this depends on your matchup. I know you aren't playing mind twist in suicide. Why? Because I know you aren't playing suicide. You are a better magic player than that. So I know you didn't just compare mind twist to hymn to tourach. While hymn to tourach is actually more cost effective than a mind twist, Mind Twist happens to be infinately splashable for such a devistating effect.

Metalworker is fine. Metalworker in the current card pool is at just about the right power level for the format. After all, goblin lacky is still legal. Guess what, it's also an artifact and a creature.

I refuse to comment on the very specualtion that a "broken replenish" deck exists. I believe that to be an oxymoron. If by boken you mean "slow and disruptable" then.. nevermind.

In conclusion,

- Discussing B/R changes just make you look dumb. It makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. I might have a thousand or more mistakes in what I have written above. I most likely do not.

- I blame people who discuss B/R changes like they are smarter than R&D for the change and seperation of the lists. You may be smarter than R&D. That's ok, so is my toaster. Just don't do it. Ok? Don't.

- Green sucks.

[Nightmare]

Nobody fucking cares what people have to say about the Banned & Restricted list because nobody's opinions on it sways anyone else's opinions on it. It's a pointless and annoying read. Seriously.

It's made me quit reading first Nightmare's and now Chris's articles, which is sad, because I really liked their articles, especially Nightmare's. But once someone hits the point of the Banned & Restricted list being all they have to talk about, then they quit being useful to read. Instead of trying to evolve Legacy within the rules, you're attempting to influence the rules themselves, which evokes resentment in die-hard players who start thinking "Why does Person X get more influence over the way the format goes than me?"

Seriously. To anyone who ever writes a B&R article not specifically related to talking about a change already made, I will never read your articles again.

I'm tempted to write a tongue-in-cheek article advocating leaving the B&R list completely alone.Hey, your pundit is showing. You should tuck that in before anyone else notices.

If you stop reading my articles because I talked about the B&R list right before an announcement as a small section in an otherwise unrelated article, then have fun not reading articles.

[FakeSpam]

Do you just keep that in a notepad file someplace? I wrote that uh.. years ago.

I was angrier then.

[Sims]

Do you just keep that in a notepad file someplace?


I do. It was a great post, though I'd feel wrong if I posted it on these threads before Mike had a chance to.

[Pinder]

I'm tempted to write a tongue-in-cheek article advocating leaving the B&R list completely alone.

Nah, write an article calling for a banned list and the subsequent bannings of "wildly overpowered" cards in Unglued and Unhinged.

[Tacosnape]

Nah, write an article calling for a banned list and the subsequent bannings of "wildly overpowered" cards in Unglued and Unhinged.

I bet I could get Jack Elgin to make certain suggestions in this article.

[jamest]

I am quite tempted to put my thoughts on the Banned/Restricted List to paper, but I'm afraid of killing people with three weeks in a row of Banned List articles.
Make a post about it?


...limited printings such as unlimited rares.
Poor choice of set, considering the sentence.


Decklists aren't necessary to demonstrate that the cards are too good.
Nothing *necessarily* demonstrates. But if you want to demonstrate more effectively, show me a deck that breaks the card. Then, I can take that decklist, test it, and see for myself. Of course, coming up with such a decklist is not easy, so I can understand not wanting to do so.


Competitive players like my work. It's relevant for people who regularly play tournament Legacy.
What is the definition of delusion?

[mujadaddy]

Competitive players like my work. It's relevant for people who regularly play tournament Legacy.


What is the definition of delusion?
Lol.

On topic -- arguing about the B&R (well, B in Legacy, right? :wink: ) is, as my esteemed Sourcers have pointed out, weaksauce.

[Mad Zur]

A decklist or two could easily have added content to this article. For example:

Frantic Search would create a new version of Solidarity that would dominate all other Combo, Control, and Aggro decks.
I honestly have no idea what such a deck would look like. In fact, based on my experience playing various Threshold builds against various High Tide builds, I think this statement is incorrect. If I'm wrong and such a deck really could exist, I think I would've found a list of that deck much more convincing than a vague, unsubstantiated assertion.

Speaking of which, I have no idea what this is talking about:

Future Sight improved the power but also the diversity of the format, eventually having the effect of making Control a legitimate archetype once again.

Also, this isn't really true:

[Grim Monolith] is useless in Combo decks since there are more playable accelerants than Combo can even use, and this is near the bottom.
Monolith would obviously be played in Belcher, because there are not more playable accelerants than that deck can use.

By no means am I, nor is anyone else, responsible for the well-being of the format, so how could I be getting called out on not doing something I can't do? Makes no sense to me.
I think he means that anyone in a position to represent Legacy and the interests of Legacy players should use that position to help, or at least not hurt, the format and the community (and clearly he believes that recommending bannings is bad for the format). For example, I could describe the behavior of the Legacy players in the SCG discussion of the article as irresponsible.

[Bryant Cook]

This gets a "meh" out of me. This topic has been beaten to death and just isn't interesting anymore, it might've been once.

[PhanTom_lt]

This gets a "meh" out of me. This topic has been beaten to death and just isn't interesting anymore, it might've been once.

This is what you get for a non-rotating format. In t2, everytime they get Jitte/Goyf/Seize printed, they argue too. But they rotate.
Before every announcement there will be such a discussion. However, until RnD decide to shake things up everytime, these discussions will be pointless. Now, imagine, if they would ban/unban at least 3 cards everytime. Now that would be a heated and constantly evolving format.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to play it, mostly due to my decks, and my investments, not being safe.

[Deep6er]

I didn't really want to bring this up (nor did I want to post in this train-wreck of a thread), but I DID, in fact, have a Solidarity deck that was playing 4 Frantic Search (mostly for fun, I wanted to be prepared in case it came back). That deck was utterly ridiculous. I was going off on turn 2 about 40% of the time, and turn 3 was about 90%. That's absolutely ridiculous. If you guys really need a decklist, I can dig through my decklist graveyard and see if I can find it. It was a while back, though I could probably reconstruct it from memory. Seriously though, the card was insane.

If anybody cares, the reason why the card is insane in Solidarity was simply that it fulfilled two roles that the deck was trying to achieve. Drawing cards (even at the cost of Card Advantage), and producing mana. The fact that the card did both at the same time was what made it so stellar. I'm completely for serious. If that card comes off the banned list, the format would be composed of blue decks and anti blue decks. It would NOT be healthy. Although, I still want it. :) Man, I'd be so happy.

[jamest]

I was going off on turn 2 about 40% of the time, and turn 3 was about 90%. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Legacy combos can already do this. How much more resilient would Solidarity be?


If that card comes off the banned list, the format would be composed of blue decks and anti blue decks.
Don't we have that already? Thresh and Anti-Thresh. How does Solidarity with FS fare in a format where Thresh is so common?


If you guys really need a decklist, I can dig through my decklist graveyard and see if I can find it. It was a while back, though I could probably reconstruct it from memory.
I want to see it. And I want to test it, rather than just assume that FS would break the format.

[Illissius]

I was going off on turn 2 about 40% of the time

In my completely inexperienced-with-Solidarity estimation, you need each of three cards to pull that off: a High Tide, a Reset, and a Frantic Search. And in my completely reasonable estimation, there is no way in Hell you're finding all of them by turn two 40% of the time. (That 40% might've been hyperbole, but it didn't come across that way.)

[Nihil Credo]

I was going off on turn 2 about 40% of the time
Huh? Frantic Search costs 3. To cast it on turn two, you have to go High Tide, Reset, Frantic Search. All other considerations aside, how could this happen 40% of the time on turn 2? I don't think even Mystical Tutor could make the combo that consistent.

[Deep6er]

OK, couple of things here.

One: I was playing Mystical Tutor in this build.

Two: Less land because I was only looking to make AT MOST 3 land drops.

Three: Mulliganing is made much more simple. When trying to go for the fastest goldfish possible, I would mulligan more frequently. Without knowing what my opponent was doing, I would not do that in a tournament situation. So, that would skew the testing results, but the important factor is it's presence. Turn 2 kills backed by Force is dangerous.

Four: Twincast. This deck was also playing four of these. That card is amazing in a Frantic Search fueled deck. It also fuels number five very well.

Five: Flash of Insight is RETARDED in a Frantic Search powered Solidarity deck. Seriously.

Honestly, the numbers could be fuzzy. If it comes off, then I'll have brand new numbers for you. After all, we don't influence it. So, why do unnecessary work? This is one of the reasons why I fucking hate Banned list discussions. They're incredibly useless.

@Jamest: The format is NOT Thresh and anti-Thresh. That's a flawed conclusion. If that were so, we'd have finalized some decks that definitely and without a shadow of a doubt were good against Threshold. All we have now are "maybe's" or "should be's" not the same thing.

[Bryant Cook]

Congrats, you'd be on the speed of TES and other combos... What does this accomplish? Other than hyping up a dead deck?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Congrats, you'd be on the speed of TES and other combos... What does this accomplish? Other than hyping up a dead deck?Oh man, burn.

He's right though, the hypothetical deck needs a Tide, Reset, two lands, and Frantic Search and at least one other card to go off turn two. That's just the starting point that would result with two untapped lands and zero to three cards in hand.

How is that better then TES?

[Deep6er]

Simple. Force of Will. Not to mention, that I'd be more resilient to hate, and I'd also be immune to other important factors. Mainly, Force of Will.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

Simple. Force of Will. Not to mention, that I'd be more resilient to hate, and I'd also be immune to other important factors. Mainly, Force of Will.
Protection- In the early days of The EPIC Storm the deck relied on laying down a Xantid Swarm and winning the turn after. These days are over, in today’s day in age we use Orim’s Chant. Blue decks have adapted to answer X/1 creatures on turn 1, we must adapt with the metagame. Orim’s Chant single handily shuts down the combo mirror and if it resolves against blue you generally win the game. Out of the sideboard we play Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast to deal with Force of Will on Orim’s Chant mainly. However, you can also use it them to kill Counterbalance- a huge threat to The EPIC Storm. Burning Wish -> into Thoughtsieze is also a great way to protect your Orim’s Chant.EDIT: I will admit, however, that High Tide seems to have a better blue based control match up.

[Jaiminho]

Not like anyone needs to mention that a Solidarity deck can dance over a counter/chant on the stack, something no other combo can do, and carry that very same protection itself. I don't really see the point in being able to go off turn 1-2 if you lose to force/stifle if you do it. Also, not like you want to be extremely versatile and be able to pack heavy protection if you can't go off on time.

Still, FS > draw4 (if you have the blue).

[Deep6er]

I like how Xantid Swarm is completely different from Force of Will. That was clever. Two different cards do not the same strategy make.

Xantid Swarm also has the drawback where you have to wait for it to attack. There are plenty of things that can stop that. Significantly fewer cards stop Force of Will. Even Orim's Chant has drawbacks. I don't necessarily see your point here.

Every single combo deck has weaknesses. My point is that Frantic Search eliminates some of the weaknesses that are currently inherent to Solidarity's construction. Pointing out that other decks like to play "protection" cards as well doesn't mean anything. After all, we can sit here all day coming up with situations that involve you having your answer, then me having an answer and keep talking until we're blue in the face.

The end result is the fact that I don't think it would be wise to unban Frantic Search. The card is immensely powerful, and would lead to the possibilities of degeneracy which should be avoided. That's not to say that they won't unban the card, I'm just stating my opinion.

However, in the interests of promoting discussion, I'll post some other things that I think are relevant in the TES as opposed to Solidarity argument. Now, since this is significantly different from the thread at hand, I'll post a little warning.

DON'T READ THIS PART! IT DOESN'T CONCERN THE THREAD IN WHICH IT'S IN. Note to moderators, please do not cut/paste this somewhere else. That kills the discussion. We'll keep it concise. Or at least I will.

1) Force of Will and Remand vs. Orim's Chant. These are the general "protection" cards in both Solidarity and TES. They accomplish different objectives.

Force of Will: Stops anything.

Remand: Stops some things, cantrips, costs two mana.

Orim's Chant: Stops most things if played proactively.

Now, in order to really analyze these things in the proper perspective, we have to look at the probable uses.

Solidarity would Force cards that hinder it's general strategy. These are (but not limited to) counters, or hosers. Most hosers are sideboard material, and differ depending on the deck, again these are (but not limited to) things like, Ichneumon Druid, Rule of Law, Chalice of the Void (this one is different in that it is maindeckable), Arcane Laboratory, Mana Maze, things of that nature. For the most part, the only cards Solidarity generally uses Force of Will on are things like Chalice and Countermagic. In game one anyway.

Remand is generally used to slow the opponent down. However, because it costs mana, it's uses are a tad bit more narrow. Pre-Counterbalance, the card excelled at dodging countermagic (preboard). Post-Counterbalance, I haven't really given it much thought, but it's possible that it would no longer be in the deck. However, that's not really the case. More importantly, it functions as an additional "protection" spell.

Orim's Chant on the other hand, is a tad bit different. Unless you can chain Chants into winning the game (not an unheard of prospect), you will usually use it proactively to either draw out counters, or to ensure that no counters are present (there is the other use of using it to semi-Time Walk as well, but that's not quite the point that I'm trying to make, after all, most "protection" cards could fit the bill there). Now, supposing that we're working with a reasonably standard TES build here, most of the time you'll usually play a land and pass on the first turn. Then, on the second turn, if you see an island type land, you'll try to Chant them and then win. However, outside of Brainstorm, you have no reliable way to find Chant on turn two. As a direct comparison, Solidarity has both Opt and Brainstorm (possibly Peek as well) to dig a little deeper to find important cards. The fact that there's no reliable way to find Chant, combined with the very real threat of the opposing deck developing in a meaningful way, means that TES is on a short timeframe in order to win. Chant, when it comes up, is really good. I'm not arguing that. What I'm trying to say is that Chant's percentage of showing up in a relevant timeframe for TES is less than Solidarity's chances of finding a Force in a relevant timeframe. That directly ties in to my next point.

2) The longer the game goes, the better for Solidarity. Not all games are decided in the first two turns. The mid/late game is where Solidarity is a wrecking ball. The fact that Frantic Search would give the deck a better early game is what makes it dangerous. However, this is NOT true of TES. While the deck is certainly capable of making devastating mid/late game plays, they are not on the same scale that Solidarity is. Previously, the burden was on the opponent for disrupting Solidarity BEFORE Solidarity hit critical mass and exploded on their opponent's face. However, with Frantic Search, I can argue that the timeframe is diminished by a full turn, possibly a turn and a half. That's a devastatingly small timeframe in which to set up disruption followed by winning the game. As both TES and Solidarity have astoundingly powerful ways of getting BACK into the game, the swift clock should also be mentioned.

Those are my two primary points. Please be concise in your responses. I do not wish to derail this thread any further than it is, but seems to me like it's a useless fucking thread anyway. Hell, I should consider doing this to every goddamn thread discussing the Banned list.

[Mad Zur]

I didn't mean to imply that Frantic Search wouldn't make Solidarity very good, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that Frantic Search should be unbanned. All I meant was that I don't think the deck would "dominate all other Combo, Control, and Aggro decks." I think that claim is too strong. I was also saying that, if there's some sort of evidence that I'm wrong, the article would have been more convincing if it contained some of that evidence.

[Machinus]

Supply and demand dictate price, therefore they are very closely related. Expense of the card is extremely relevant, because it is what causes the entry barrier. Scarcity and price, for the purpose of this discussion, are the same thing.

No, they are differnt qualities. This is a collectible card game. People value cards for quite a lot of reasons other than rarity. Very few rare cards are valuable, and quite a lot of common cards are expensive.

One is a legitimate criterion for banning, the other isn't, and it's easy to separate them.

[frogboy]

I liked this thread more when it was Machinus arguing with everyone. Dave, chill.

edit:


Wizards has no problems with cards being expensive. On the contrary, they are happy about that because they make money selling cards.

Wizards makes money selling packs. (there is a further point to this! Use your inductive reasoning powers! I know you're okay with vague statements that reference further material that can only be accessed by the all-knowing and wise.)


Quote:
my success in this format is quite public and it just makes you look like a troll.


I am legitimately curious what these are as a cursory look at SCG top eights in the deck database since the end of 2006 shows nothing, but I might not be searching correctly.

Also, when you say you "welcome criticism" and then attack the critic you appear supremely disingenuous and arrogant.

One of these statements has yet to be responded to. The other still has merit.

[goobafish]

No, they are different (sic) qualities. This is a collectible card game. People value cards for quite a lot of reasons other than rarity. Very few rare cards are valuable, and quite a lot of common cards are expensive.

One is a legitimate criterion for banning, the other isn't, and it's easy to separate them.


I didn't say people valued cards higher because they were more rare. I stated the basic law of supply and demand, if there is a high demand for a card then the supply combined with that demand dictates the price. This is basic economics. Semi-precious gemstones like Rubys are more rare then diamonds, but diamonds are worth more because they are more wanted. If a card is rare and is widely used in legacy then the price will be high.

This is not controversial or to be argued, this is basic economic theory and it applies to Magic, as it does all goods.

[Bryant Cook]

Let me start out by saying, I am honored that I got your panties in a twist or at least a weggie.


I like how Xantid Swarm is completely different from
Force of Will. That was clever. Two different cards do not the same strategy make.

Xantid Swarm also has the drawback where you have to wait for it to attack. There are plenty of things that can stop that. Significantly fewer cards stop Force of Will. Even Orim's Chant has drawbacks. I don't necessarily see your point here. Xantid Swarm was cut a long, long time ago. I agree that Xantid and Swarm serve dramatically different purposes. To be honest, I'm not really sure why we're arguing over such a cute little insect anyways. Gearbear, I'm sure we can share him or I'll let him cover you.



Every single combo deck has weaknesses. My point is that Frantic Search eliminates some of the weaknesses that are currently inherent to Solidarity's construction. Pointing out that other decks like to play "protection" cards as well doesn't mean anything. After all, we can sit here all day coming up with situations that involve you having your answer, then me having an answer and keep talking until we're blue in the face.

The end result is the fact that I don't think it would be wise to unban Frantic Search. The card is immensely powerful, and would lead to the possibilities of degeneracy which should be avoided. That's not to say that they won't unban the card, I'm just stating my opinion. MMMMhmmm, I see, yes. Well I think it's just science that combo decks have weaknesses, I don't really know what we're arguing about here...But I'll go along with it. Rbahamble, rbamble. Blue in the face, I get it! I get it! Blue = Solidarity! Good pun, was it intended?

Degeneracy? Please, not another consistent turn 2-3 combo deck with protection! Someone call up the justice league![/sarcasm] I think it's a fine card to unban. I just hope they unban it's friend with the same CC when they unban that....C'mon windfall.


However, in the interests of promoting discussion, I'll post some other things that I think are relevant in the TES as opposed to Solidarity argument. Now, since this is significantly different from the thread at hand, I'll post a little warning.

DON'T READ THIS PART! IT DOESN'T CONCERN THE THREAD IN WHICH IT'S IN. Note to moderators, please do not cut/paste this somewhere else. That kills the discussion. We'll keep it concise. Or at least I will.
Man, I'm already getting sore fingers from typing. Shorten this shit next time.



1) Force of Will and Remand vs. Orim's Chant. These are the general "protection" cards in both Solidarity and TES. They accomplish different objectives.

Force of Will: Stops anything.

Remand: Stops some things, cantrips, costs two mana.

Orim's Chant: Stops most things if played proactively.

Now, in order to really analyze these things in the proper perspective, we have to look at the probable uses.

Solidarity would Force cards that hinder it's general strategy. These are (but not limited to) counters, or hosers. Most hosers are sideboard material, and differ depending on the deck, again these are (but not limited to) things like, Ichneumon Druid, Rule of Law, Chalice of the Void (this one is different in that it is maindeckable), Arcane Laboratory, Mana Maze, things of that nature. For the most part, the only cards Solidarity generally uses Force of Will on are things like Chalice and Countermagic. In game one anyway.

Remand is generally used to slow the opponent down. However, because it costs mana, it's uses are a tad bit more narrow. Pre-Counterbalance, the card excelled at dodging countermagic (preboard). Post-Counterbalance, I haven't really given it much thought, but it's possible that it would no longer be in the deck. However, that's not really the case. More importantly, it functions as an additional "protection" spell. I'm curious, where are all of these new cards fitting into the old list, but I'll be damned if remand stays with the addition of 12 new cards. So... I'm going to chop remand out of this argument. I'll agree with you on a few points, but you are forgetting that TES has more than just Chant, it also has blasts and thoughtseize (from Burning Wish). This "hinder"s some of your general strategies. I have Burning Wish for a lot of the cards if not all of them that you listed. Not to mention I could just win the game before they get a chance to hit the table, unlike solidarity. If Burning Wish doesn't take care of it, and it gets past Chant/blasts, I guess we'll go to game 3. A resolved counterbalance is an issue for both decks, however, TES has an easier job of getting it off the table. With blasts and Tranquility. I could also just ignore it with ETW.



Orim's Chant on the other hand, is a tad bit different. Unless you can chain Chants into winning the game (not an unheard of prospect), you will usually use it proactively to either draw out counters, or to ensure that no counters are present (there is the other use of using it to semi-Time Walk as well, but that's not quite the point that I'm trying to make, after all, most "protection" cards could fit the bill there). Now, supposing that we're working with a reasonably standard TES build here, most of the time you'll usually play a land and pass on the first turn. Then, on the second turn, if you see an island type land, you'll try to Chant them and then win. However, outside of Brainstorm, you have no reliable way to find Chant on turn two. As a direct comparison, Solidarity has both Opt and Brainstorm (possibly Peek as well) to dig a little deeper to find important cards. The fact that there's no reliable way to find Chant, combined with the very real threat of the opposing deck developing in a meaningful way, means that TES is on a short timeframe in order to win. Chant, when it comes up, is really good. I'm not arguing that. What I'm trying to say is that Chant's percentage of showing up in a relevant timeframe for TES is less than Solidarity's chances of finding a Force in a relevant timeframe. That directly ties in to my next point. Sigh. Another long paragraph. I also have ponder and draw 4's to find chants alone, not including blasts or Burning Wish for 'Seize. I'm sure somewhere in the game I'll disrupt you and/or win the game/fizzle.



2) The longer the game goes, the better for Solidarity. Not all games are decided in the first two turns. The mid/late game is where Solidarity is a wrecking ball. The fact that Frantic Search would give the deck a better early game is what makes it dangerous. However, this is NOT true of TES. While the deck is certainly capable of making devastating mid/late game plays, they are not on the same scale that Solidarity is. Previously, the burden was on the opponent for disrupting Solidarity BEFORE Solidarity hit critical mass and exploded on their opponent's face. However, with Frantic Search, I can argue that the timeframe is diminished by a full turn, possibly a turn and a half. That's a devastatingly small timeframe in which to set up disruption followed by winning the game. As both TES and Solidarity have astoundingly powerful ways of getting BACK into the game, the swift clock should also be mentioned. um...Yup? Ya got me I guess.



Those are my two primary points. Please be concise in your responses. I do not wish to derail this thread any further than it is, but seems to me like it's a useless fucking thread anyway. Hell, I should consider doing this to every goddamn thread discussing the Banned list. Please do this is kinda fun...[/sarcasm]

[TeenieBopper]

Do you just keep that in a notepad file someplace? I wrote that uh.. years ago.

I was angrier then.

It's the second quote in the quotes thread.

I actually went digging for the original thread a while back. I guess it's in the "Nightmare Fucked up The Source" forum.

[frogboy]

that forum's name is just "douche"

[TeenieBopper]

that forum's name is just "douche"

I guess that makes sense too.

[Jaiminho]

(...) (...) (...)

I thought it was already time to somehow try to stay on topic and stop with the unilateral points of view. Not like B&R discussions will lead anywhere...

[Whit3 Ghost]

Xantid Swarm was cut a long, long time ago. I agree that Xantid and Swarm serve dramatically different purposes.
You sure?

[Bryant Cook]

You sure?

AHah, typo by me. Xantid of the swarm and wills of force.

[Bardo]

that forum's name is just "douche"


I guess that makes sense too.

A lot of people don't get to see this, given transaction and there view-ability thereof, but I never thought I'd type the phrase "Moved to Douche" as many times as I have in the past 7 months.

As for the article, it was oddly short and thin on content. At 1,227 words it just barely met SCG's minimum word count.

Otherwise, I'm with Chris on unbanning Land Tax, but I feel it's safer to leave everything else alone. Neither Earthcraft nor Grim Monolith are doing the format any harm by being banned and the format's in fine shape, as-is.

Anyway, it wasn't a particularly bad article; the expectation for content for Legacy stuff is just quite high.

If anyone is interested in more Legacy content than they probably want to read, they should check SCG for my beastly 6k word treatise on Landstill that'll be out on Friday (or next Tuesday at the latest).

[Illissius]

If anyone is interested in more Legacy content than they probably want to read, they should check SCG for my beastly 6k word treatise on Landstill that'll be out on Friday (or next Tuesday at the latest).

Yay!

[Nihil Credo]

If anyone is interested in more Legacy content than they probably want to read, they should check SCG for my beastly 6k word treatise on Landstill that'll be out on Friday (or next Tuesday at the latest).
+1 6k words of Bardo articles
-1 Probably 6k words about why Tarmogoyf should be in Landstill

[Obfuscate Freely]

More words do not necessarily equate to more content. That is, unless you're in high school.

[Peter_Rotten]

More words do not necessarily equate to more content. That is, unless you're in high school.

I resent that. I encourage my students to write less. Do you think we like reading essays?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

More words do not necessarily equate to more content. That is, unless you're in high school.I hated that, I always wrote to the point and would get marked down for not using enough fluff. It's the content density that's the important part.

[Dilettante]

I resent that. I encourage my students to write less. Do you think we like reading essays?

I concur. I dock my business class students when they stuff their PowerPoint presentations with so much that you're squinting. No more than 4 bullet points, no more than 7 words per point, per slide...

[Finn]

Considering how far we are from the topic, I would call this the best discussion on B+R to date. There are no opinions to vehemently disagree with. Group hug, group hug.

Nah, I still hate you all.

[xsockmonkeyx]

Nah, I still hate you all.

The feeling is mutual.

[Bardo]

More words do not necessarily equate to more content. That is, unless you're in high school.

I definitely agree. A really good example of superb content efficiency would be Feldman's "One Game (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14985.html)." (now free) That's an impressive exercise in saying a lot in a rather brief article. I'm not Feldman, obv., but I want every word I write to have value--I write legal contracts for a living, after all.

[Ewokslayer]

but I want every word I write to have value--I write legal contracts for a living, after all.
Aren't Legal Contracts an exercise in wasting words and taking up space on a page?

[mujadaddy]

Aren't Legal Contracts an exercise in wasting words and taking up space on a page?

You're thinking of laws.

[TeenieBopper]

You're thinking of laws.

Have you ever read a legal contract?

[mujadaddy]

Have you ever read a legal contract?
Sure. They're tighter than you+Wicket are giving them credit for... and every one of those words means something specific to both parties, in addition to being civily enforceable.

[Bardo]

Aren't Legal Contracts an exercise in wasting words and taking up space on a page?

Depends. If you're trying to structure a deal for a massive multi-million $$ project, being specific, thorough and clear on deliverables, obligations and responsibilities of the parties to the agreement is pretty important.

Writing a Scope of Work for instance, no word should be used extraneously.

You may be thinking of credit card agreements or other overly-legalese'd documents that actually discouages an understanding of the deal. I don't write those kinds of contracts. :)

[ritnecrowin]

Just curious, if frantic search was legal, wouldn't replenish decks be the nutz?
Meaning Pandaburst? Off the top of my head, 4x Intuition, 4x Frantic Search, 4x Mystical, 4x Force of Will, 4x Ancient Tomb, 4x City of Traitors, 4x Replinish, 3x Sap Burst, 3x Pandemonium.. possibly Pact of Negation or Daze?... I dunno, this is 10 sec. worth of thought.
I remember playing this guy in old extended and it was pretty savage then....

[kirdape3]

If you really have something to say, saying less is harder than saying more - you have to be exhaustive sometimes and that takes up a lot of space. It's not unnecessary, but it's not small either. Length should not be actually taken as an indicator of quality in an essay. I always despise (and will continue to despise) an essay if it tries too hard to be short and therefore has gaps in it.

[C.P.]

Just curious, if frantic search was legal, wouldn't replenish decks be the nutz?
Meaning Pandaburst? Off the top of my head, 4x Intuition, 4x Frantic Search, 4x Mystical, 4x Force of Will, 4x Ancient Tomb, 4x City of Traitors, 4x Replinish, 3x Sap Burst, 3x Pandemonium.. possibly Pact of Negation or Daze?... I dunno, this is 10 sec. worth of thought.
I remember playing this guy in old extended and it was pretty savage then....

Well, that deck also had a Full set of consultation. I don't think penderburst make the cut in the modern metagame. Frantic search, however, is the nuts and should never see light of the day in Legacy, ever.

Storm combo and dredge(a bit different version that we know, admittedly) being the top candidates for abuser.

[Lego]

I was going to make a relevant post, and then got bored. So instead: Did you guys consider the broken synergy that Frantic Search has with the current best blue card in the format, Tarmogoyf?