Printable View
I pretty much agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Also, if you ban fetchlands, Duals are going to see an increase in price as they'll be played as 4 of for more consistency.
I don't think that is what we need (Replacing 10 to 16 50 dollars cards by 4 to 8 200 dollars cards).
Go to mtgtop8 and pull up some events. Go play [or watch] legacy against Wrenn/Oko. There‘s no one statistic you can pull up to explain how a deck playing efficient isolated 1-card combos is doing too well. It‘s pretty easy to understand that, just like standard, when there‘s nothing that will challenge your ability to cast the most busted card, that you will. If the card is busted enough, everyone has to play it if they‘re serious about winning with a fair strategy.
Imagine DnT gets a busted card, and you make their deck irrelevant by going GSZ -> Ouphe, FoW your StP; your deck doens‘t matter anymore. Imagine Lands gets some busted land, and you FoN their Loam; your deck doesn‘t matter anymore. Imagine Sol Land wastes their first turn on Chalice, then 2 turns later you invalidate it with Oko; your deck doesn‘t matter anymore. These are oversimplifications ofc, but understand that you can dumpster their entire strategies b/c you can attack/invalidate the mana regardless of what mistakes WotC prints. There is no such equivalent way to beat Fetchlands reliably. What you‘re left with are perfect cards [the mistakes] and a pool of imperfect ways to deal with them. Gotta bring legacy back to step 1: Get all those Fetchland users on mana strategies with strenghts *and* more importantly weaknesses. It‘s not about efficiency, it‘s about putting everyone on interactive mana decisions, that matter more than whatever WotC decides to print next.
Reading through your posts, it‘s as though you think that without Fetchlands everyone would do the exact same thing for mana, but that‘s not the case. Suddenly a mana strategy has to be matched to the an intended playstyle. So about constriction, you can pick whatever payoffs/wincons you want, but now you‘d have to work backwards to the realities of mana constraints; you have to make some real mana choices that actually mattered. This is in stark contrast to: I‘m going to play 8 Fetch and 6 duals; what‘s the most busted payoff card?
There‘s lots of things you can do on 3+ colors, there‘s a lot of things you can‘t on 2c. The idea that they will share the same optimal mana strategy is quite flimsy. These are very different paths, both viable. Get them off the same mana, and nobody gets a free pass to run around jamming Wrenn/Oko across the format. It‘s hard to prevail when one side says “I might be a little slower, but I’m still not going to let you cast that, also I can still use Brainstorm“ vs. another strategy is saying “these >2c requisite cards are better than anything your deck is doing.“ This creates counterplay and competition.
Edit: Your asking to for proof of what is hiding in plain sight; Cavern/Vial & Loam/Mox & Sol Land/Chalice can all be combatted effectively and reliably on a mana axis. Fetchlands cannot; that‘s the problem with Fetchlands. Unlike the others you can‘t attack them, you can only defend.
—
Hymn only exists as an annoyance b/c the combination of CB and Fetchlands being legal has led to a series of bans making Hymn the most protected card in legacy (ban DTT, ban SDT, ban Wrenn) - there‘s barely any cards left to proactively fight it besides play and pass Azcanta and Sylvan.
I hardly care about Hymn/Snapcaster in a format where you‘d get obliterated by Wasteland for daring to play outside UB. Even if you got the mana to work, you‘d run into proactive & opposing hate cards. CB on the other hand has needed a ban more than any other single card in legacy since 2012 at least. The fact that CB is propping up Hymn [SDT ban] makes it all the more insufferable. If we‘re being honest, in a game where we ban cards b/c of dexterity, mindless RNG of Hymn and CB blind flips is enough justification by itself to toss these out.
Some cards are not fixable; in legacy this is primarily CB and Fetchlands. The longer they are left in, the more problems we walk into. We just got into trouble with banning DRS b/c of Fetchlands, as Wrenn never had anything to check it, so we had to make a followup ban. In doing so we just banned Hymn back into the driver‘s seat without any need to fear a predator. Failures like these off the back of [mostly] Fetchlands being legal are becoming increasingly self-propagating.
Yes, if you mass duals you will consistently not be able to control your incoming mana (for a 3rd color), nor will you be able to use Brainstorm, nor will you be able to get extra lands out of your deck with each land drop. You have identified one way to play without Fetches, there are others (and they can use Wasteland).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tylert
An interesting way to try to assert that I don't pay attention to results, or that I don't play or watch any games. Unfortunately, I do all three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
So, lets take your initial advice:
Win a Dual 37 @ Tübingen (Germany) (55 players) Top 8: (5 Oko, 6 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
PTT League #1 @ Parma (Italy) (18 players) Top 4: (1 Oko, 3 Wrenn)
LH's Road to Bologna @ Hannover (Germany) (54 players) Top 8 (2 Oko, 7 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
10k-SeriesTrial @ Alara Games (Trollhättan, Sweden) (16 players) Top 4: (0 Oko, 0 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
Cookie Qualifier @ Mr. Nice Guy Games (Monroeville, PA) (17 players) Top 4: (0 Oko, 0 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
4 Formats Team Event (Leg / Mod / Stand / Draft) @ Norman (Oklahoma) (37 players) Top 8 (2 Oko, 6 Wrenn, 2 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
Masters Champ @ Amazing Discoveries (16 players) Top 4: (0 Oko, 0 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
MTGO Legacy Challenge 11/11/19 (? players) Top 8: (4 Oko, 5 Wrenn, 2 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
(Actually, MTGTop8 sucks, switch to Goldfish)
MTGO Legacy Challenge 11/18/19 (? players) Top 8: (2 Oko, 4 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
MTGO PTQ (? players) Top 8: (4 Oko, 6 Wrenn, 0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
So, now, what were you saying about results? How nothing really mattered, just jam the "best cards?" Go on and say, "small sample size" or whatever you like. However, there is no systematic proof there, that I could find, to support your thesis that no one made any "real" choices and only jammed the "best cards."
In fact, your whole thesis on how Hymn and Counterbalance are so format warping and over powered, how does that show up? By maybe putting 2 copies (notably all in sideboards) in all those results? Or, wait, was it that Oko and Wrenn were "holding them back?" Ok, so let us see how the format shapes up now that Wrenn is gone.
If you build D&T in some way that you lose, on the spot to a literal grizzly bear with Null Rod in tow, your deck sucks. The rest of your deck is hot garbage and you are likely either the most unlucky person on earth, or the worst player possible. The rest of your deck certainly matters. You likely still have something like 20 something other cards that absolutely do matter (outside lands). But, yes, let us pretend that D&T cannot possible beat a Null Rod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
In fact, most, non-combo decks (and even most combo decks) are specifically designed to not lose to hate in that way. Of course Lands doesn't fold to a FoN on Loam, the deck wins with Lands, for the exact reason of that they can't be counterspelled. So, yeah, if they have natural DD + Stage, they win.
You don't need to bring Legacy back anywhere. Arguably, the whole point of Legacy is to accumulate more powerful cards, in a (nearly) direct supersession. Once the better card exists, there is rarely even a reason to look back. So, what we have is a drawing toward something like the "absolute" most powerful cards. Now, in reality, there is no Absolute. There is no "most powerful." There is just effectiveness in the meta.
So, the notion that we need to go backwards, is actually just your subjective feeling that we should go backwards, because it's "more interesting" to you. It's not more interesting to me. It's directly atavistic. And it doesn't even serve it's posited ends. The format will still homogenize around next best options. There will be "optimal" meta-dependent ways to build mana-bases.
This notion that somehow Legacy should be some idyllic fantasy land, like the idealized version of Nature humans sometimes have, of harmony and coexistence, where any deck goes, where anything has the ability to win consistently, where every choice can be a weighty deliberation of careful meta-consideration is just that, a fantasy. Legacy is the disgusting reality of Nature where everything is food for something else, where babies are ruthlessly eviscerated on whims, where existence is a painful and tenuous struggle for survival.
But don't let me, or any actual data stop you from peddling what, again, I can only see as your subjective preferences as objective truth, your idyllic notion of what Legacy should be vs. what it actually is. The thing is, to not be caught in a clear Is-Ought distinction, that what you imagine should be, would in all probability never be, because it rejects the fundamental reality that more cards does not necessarily lead to more competitively viable cards, per se. Format constriction and homogeneity only grows the more cards have disparate power-levels.
That doesn't mean that small (card-pool) formats necessarily have more viable decks than larger ones. The point is that the viability of wide swaths of a card-pool are not predicated on the size of that card pool. This is so trivially true that I struggle with how to explain it. As you say, we play with the mistakes. That is what makes the format interesting. Fetchlands are part of that. Now, again, your subjective valuation says those mistakes are not worth keeping. Wizards disagrees. You've made no real case as to why they should reconsider. Instead, you just claim that Fetchless mana bases are more interesting because they are sub-optimal. There isn't anything interesting to me about that. The meta could and would determine what mana bases would look like. Might they be less homogenous? Maybe. Might they look more homogenous? Plausibly as well. There will be the prevailing competitive paradigm and while you can make as many non-competitive choices as you like and think they are interesting, I see no reason, aside your assurance, that this new slightly sub-optimal equilibrium is demonstrably better from any standpoint.
In fact, from your own admission that Vial and/or Tomb would need to be watched, there is plenty of plausible downside. But lets just pretend that it's all fascinating "real" choices, right?
I'll do us both a favor though. You can have this thread. We can both just pretend that you "won" this point and go on with your plan and get Wizards to listen to just how right you are.
Legacy being essentially a death metal album was easily the highlight of that post
Hey, we're trying here, :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds
I have never been more proud of the community of TheSource.Quote:
Legacy is the disgusting reality of Nature where everything is food for something else, where babies are ruthlessly eviscerated on whims, where existence is a painful and tenuous struggle for survival.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhN6lT-y5U
More like Schopenhauer and Wolf Eyes for me, please, :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg30jDBlrtE
Re: Legacy is the savage disgusting reality of nature where all are slaughtered (and only the best cards will ever win games anyway)
Sure, but why have a banned list at all?
Because cards don't win games, players do. Players are the ones who spend money as well. The cards don't do anything themselves and I can also assure you, I've won many games with flatly bad cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
What players think, and importantly perceive, is vastly more important than what actually is.
The Banned list serves to curate expectation. You want players to have a reasonable understanding of what they are getting themselves in to. They also want a realistic expectation of parity. Now, what is "realistic?" We have 2,000 pages here as a monument to just how ambiguous that is. So, what is it? I don't know, ask Wizards for their normative base assumptions. It could be anything, but it's not one thing, almost certainly.
I agree on that, and of course I’m in favor of the existence of a ban list. I just want us to steer away from arguments against banning card X that apply equally to all other cards (“banning X is silly because Legacy is so metal, has always been so metal, and always will be so metal”) because such arguments logically extend to the unbanning of all cards.
The topic of unbanning fetches is interesting. You’re right that we can’t accurately predict how the format would look if they were banned, so to do it would be a leap in the dark — more so than other bans in the past. Of course, supporting the idea is the sound insight that trade-offs are better game design than strictly-betters. In any case Legacy would look a lot different and maybe any change of such magnitude might be undesirable to many, no matter the result.
That’s why (in the same post where I suggested a banning algorithm) I suggested a format with no reserved list cards and no Ons/Zen fetches. The same format could be played without an algorithmic approach to banning, of course.
Edit: A new format with a banning algorithm satisfies the criterion of players needing to know what they’re getting into.
You have successfully described why Wrenn was a bad ban. He chased Hymn and CB out of the format. He's gone, those two are coming back - there is nothing that can stop it. Just sit back and watch; we're going straight back to Czech-Grixis era and there isn't a card to stop it. UW will turtle up with CB, and no Fetchland strategy will ever threaten the tier 1 position of either deck. While Veil is cool and all as a 3 for 0 against Hymn, it's not a proactive [since someone is going to say "but Veil"]Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Ok, but there wasn't a proactive threat that beat Wrenn either (except arguably Tendrils). Why is having wrenn be good better than having CB/Hymn be good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
No fetchland strategy was previously threatening the tier 1 position of RUG. Your implication is that the czech-grixis (+cb?) era is somehow worse than the RUG era, why?
What makes your preferred reality better than the alternatives?
Wrenn is easier to beat [yard hate for example] than CB saying Decay or lose, while in the same meta Decay in deck = losing to Snap/Hymn. There is no creative space for fair decks to go that flying deathtouch + Shatter/Shock + don't have a hand (Snap/Hymn) can't stop them from reaching. It's an incredibly miserable meta trapped between Hymn and blue Hymn [CB].Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
Combo-control can't help shape the meta in that environment, so DnT is all alone; only able to put a damper on Depths. Spell-based combo (ANT/Burn) can no longer fulfill their roles as the legacy course ghost vs CB, so Czech/Grixis (depends on whether or not they go 4c for green's Astro/Oko/Decay/Trophy) has no reason to lay off the slower value durdling. Offensive combos (the kind DnT can't do anything about) start running amok; things like B/R and Sol Land/Chalice/Karn derping pop up to try and cheese games by going under CB and Hymn. Depths is off doing its own things that don't really matter since it's still a 2-for-1-self deck at the end of the day. Delver of whatever flavor is going to bounce around generally getting thrashed by either CB or Hymn, and not really being a reliable stop on anything else going on in the meta. Delver is going to be okay-ish against most things, but it's not exactly great at being a gatekeeper against hyper-offensive combo. You always hope R/G lands will do something to open up the meta, but it jumps in and out of tier 1 based on what hate opponents are willing to pack; and now with FoN targeting Loam (on top of restrictively-priced staples), we can pretty much count them out. This is particularly unfortunate b/c of its unique interaction suite.
I could go on, but the main thing is you have Hymn and CB playing off eachother, and there's not much else you can do to any great effect. There's no value-generating PW, they can't kill, threatening to come down before they can get set up. So Czech/Grixis thins the Decay-wielding herd with incredible ease, such that CB has less things to react to. Then CB returns the favor by keeping SDT banned so that no one can ever assemble a plan in a zone Hymn and instant speed Kcomm discard can't touch. We've done this for a few years already between the banning of SDT and printing of Wrenn; we all know how this goes.
As stupid as RUG Delver was with Wrenn/Oko, it's still just RUG. They don't have a great late game, their threats are easier to deal with than SCM + Mentor or Strix (RUG loses their guy, they lose a full card), and they still have a reasonable chance of dying to Wasteland. They also have such a profound problem dealing with enemy Goyf that their only response was to have 3-4x of their own. They pretty much hit the ceiling of how many non-Delver-flipping cards they could play, as well as how many not blue cards. Their deck is locked into its cards until they get direct upgrades; as time goes along RUG Delver has a reputation for staying where its at while everyone else gets printings to outclass them. RUG is a self-correcting problem; Hymn and CB aren't.
Veil of Summer is a big one. I personally don't feel Hymn is even playable with Veil of Summer in the format, so our perspectives are pretty different on this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
An algorithmic approach to banning is likely preferable to the "common sense" approach currently implemented by WOTC. In the current approach, a ban is mostly subjective; yes, there may be *some* numbers backing it (this card was played in X% of decks), but on the whole they often could have banned another card in the dominating deck easily (for example, Counterbalance over SDT). An algorithm, OTOH, would destroy any sense of "sacred cows" existing in Legacy and lead to (IMO) a much more interesting format, with two desirable properties:Quote:
Originally Posted by BirdsOfParadise
1) A more predictable format. This makes it easier for players to predict the metagame and optimize for it.
2) A format in which, theoretically, the actual "best" cards are banned. There wouldn't be room for bickering about what "best" means.
Now to move onto the algorithm: the function would need to take into account both the density of each card across the metagame, and also the distribution. It would be really cool to allow a slow drip of banned cards *back* into the metagame after a certain amount of time expired, to see if they remain "ban-worthy". The algorithm could handle that too.
The problem I guess is in setting your thresholds: at what point should the algorithm decide a card is banworthy? Players will disagree about that, and some human needs to adjust the algorithm if it's determined to be too lenient or strict (whatever that means). So we're left again without a simple objective function, because the notion of what a "good" format is is something about which reasonable people can disagree...
However, I notice that people often cling really tightly to their opinions, which are generally matters of taste, and that, in a question like this, an algorithm often performs better than individual taste anyway. It's like Larry David says — "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied". An algorithmic approach would probably make everyone 75% happy. I bet it would work better than the current approach, but that's just my take.
Of course, it'll never happen. So.
Every now and then someone suggests there should be rules for bannings. Algorithms is a similar suggestion, and I can't help but think it it wouldn't serve a purpose for WotC. It would be mostly in the interest of players who, perhaps, wish to have a simple decision making process that they can have some insight into. A simple decision making process is much less attractive to me than actually good decisions. Here's a perspective on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LMental
When making complex decisions, the brain on a well-functioning person is usually better at evaluating the situation than some designed algorithm which will inevitably be too simple to consider all relevant factors. The algorithm can only hope to make a decent substitute for the decision making process of the brain, and for each new potential ban there may be new factors to consider that haven't been included, yet, in the algorithm. Things change, priorities change, preferences change, the format and MtG even changes. Why would WotC shoot themselves in the foot like that, letting a limited algorithm make decisions for them on a complex issue like this when they are equipped with brains that are great at making these kinds of decisions?
Perhapstthe best algorithm design approach would be to use machine learning but that's likely too much work, considering mentioned shortcomings of any algorithm. And I'm not sure how data would be achieved or verified for the learning. [edit: oh, there's actually MTGO for data, I tunnelvisioned Arena only. Just woke up and posting from bed, this brain apparently not fully operational, yet]
This might make sense 'in theory', 'in principle', or 'in a vacuum' but seems to be either unnecessarily thinking in absolute terms, or just theorycrafting way too hard and ignoring reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
For example if Wrenn was so easy to beat with yard hate, then simply why did we not see that? Especially since the Wrenn decks were also playing Goyf and thus also even more soft to cards like RIP, 'in theory'.
And in the pre-MH1 meta, Miracles and Grixis were a relatively larger part of the metagame (well, 4C Pile with Wrenn and Grixis pre-Wrenn both had similar metashares) but we didn't see this total devolution into a 2-deck meta that you are implying.
This is an extremely hand-wavy justification for why 0 other non-cb-non-hymn archetype is viable and again the tournament data pre-MH1 simply doesn't agreeQuote:
Combo-control can't help shape the meta in that environment, so DnT is all alone; only able to put a damper on Depths. Spell-based combo (ANT/Burn) can no longer fulfill their roles as the legacy course ghost vs CB, so Czech/Grixis (depends on whether or not they go 4c for green's Astro/Oko/Decay/Trophy) has no reason to lay off the slower value durdling. Offensive combos (the kind DnT can't do anything about) start running amok; things like B/R and Sol Land/Chalice/Karn derping pop up to try and cheese games by going under CB and Hymn. Depths is off doing its own things that don't really matter since it's still a 2-for-1-self deck at the end of the day. Delver of whatever flavor is going to bounce around generally getting thrashed by either CB or Hymn, and not really being a reliable stop on anything else going on in the meta. Delver is going to be okay-ish against most things, but it's not exactly great at being a gatekeeper against hyper-offensive combo. You always hope R/G lands will do something to open up the meta, but it jumps in and out of tier 1 based on what hate opponents are willing to pack; and now with FoN targeting Loam (on top of restrictively-priced staples), we can pretty much count them out. This is particularly unfortunate b/c of its unique interaction suite.
Again, you're just theorycrafting reasons in your own mind why RUG (or Wrenn in general) is supposedly this crappy, easily beatable deck and ignoring the data that painted the opposite picture.Quote:
As stupid as RUG Delver was with Wrenn/Oko, it's still just RUG. They don't have a great late game, their threats are easier to deal with than SCM + Mentor or Strix (RUG loses their guy, they lose a full card), and they still have a reasonable chance of dying to Wasteland. They also have such a profound problem dealing with enemy Goyf that their only response was to have 3-4x of their own. They pretty much hit the ceiling of how many non-Delver-flipping cards they could play, as well as how many not blue cards. Their deck is locked into its cards until they get direct upgrades; as time goes along RUG Delver has a reputation for staying where its at while everyone else gets printings to outclass them. RUG is a self-correcting problem; Hymn and CB aren't.
"The deck is locked into its own cards until they get direct upgrades" so you think the correct course of action was to let RUG continue to exist and wait for everything else to just powercreep and catch up to it?
Wrenn was exactly that kind of powercreep that made Hymn and CB obsolete and a lot of people were unhappy with it. What kind of powercreep do you want Miracles (or combo, or any other archetype) to get that makes Wrenn obsolete? It would have to be such a strong card it would be unlikely to have a balanced, enjoyable effect on the format, and I think the majority of players are unlikely to find this approach palatable.
@kombatkiwi
The decks I listed were all playable. I was showing how those decks, despite being playable, did nothing to ever threaten Hymn/CB from tier 1. Then I walked through how CB/Hymn were thus unopposed in their inviting hyper-aggressive combo decks to the meta. The decks I listed failed to push back against hyper-aggressive combo. So creative space went away, particularly for fair Fetchland-using decks.
This was in response to the post of results where Wrenn had all the representation while Hymn and CB had almost none. Wrenn killed Hymn, and CB predictably died in sequence. Things were better with Wrenn; that was the point. Better actors for the shaping the meta (combo-control and spell-based combo) existed around Wrenn. The one exception is what Wrenn (and Plague as well to an extent) did to DnT. We lost a fairly important combo-control and Depths checkpoint there. The obstacle for fair deck construction in that meta was that you had to be able to pass the "dies to Goyf" test, and then also have something that had a plan for the sequence of Delver -> Wrenn -> Goyf. The stuff going on in the background of a Wrenn meta is much easier to control, the background has to run through a filter of RUG Delver being the best deck meaning everyone has more yard hate, isn't skipping on removal, and isn't playing anemic value duder magic. Add Oko to that and artifacts are not a safe outlet either; we really did drive down the amount of hyper-linear combo with Wrenn.
RUG was pretty outrageous on the power level, but it's a lot easier to handle when you aren't priced into running Decay in a meta where your hand is going to get obliterated.
Well, at least someone is paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by kombatkiwi
Fox's assertions are never supported by data, all he does it surmise theory based off his subjective preferences. You are exactly right, pre-Wrenn, there was no systematic "domination" by either Hymn or Counterbalance.
MTGO Legacy Premier event 4/6 Top 8 (0 Hymn, 1 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 4/7 Top 8: (3 Hymn, 4 Counterbalance)
Card Kingdom's Legacy Preservation Series 1k 4/13 Top 8 (0 Hymn, 2 Counterbalance)
Nerd Rage Gaming $5000 Championship Trial 4/13 Top 8: (3 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 4/14 Top 8: (0 Hymn, 2 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 4/21 Top 8: (0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 4/28 Top 8: (0 Hymn, 4 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 5/5 Top 8: (0 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 5/12 Top 8: (3 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
Legacy Challenge 5/19 Top 8: (0 Counterbalance, 6 Hymns)
Card Kingdom's Legacy Preservation Series 1k 5/18 Top 8: (1 Counterbalance, 0 Hymn) (Note: 4 Miracles decks made top 8 and played one (sideboard) Counterbalance.)
Legacy Challenge 5/26 Top 8: (3 Counterbalance, 0 Hymn)
Legacy Challenge 6/2 Top 8: (3 Hymn, 0 Counterbalance)
What's the mitigating force here? Neither Grixis nor Miracles were "dominating" by any stretch of the imagination. Neither Hymn, nor Counterbalance were putting up overwhelming numbers. There is no doubt that both are powerful cards, but where are the results in that 2 months or so leading up to Wrenn's release? Or, did we know the future and pre-shift the meta in anticipation?
I don't have the time, at the moment, to go and debunk the notion, expressed previously, that somehow DTT was banned to protect Hymn, because I am fairly certain that in the DTT era, Hymn was notoriously bad. It's why I played Death and Taxes in that time-frame. Or, wait, was it that DTT was banned to make Hymn better? I don't know, I get my spurious narratives confused sometimes.
We'll all wait with bated breath for the next exciting new narrative though.