All B/R update speculation.

You're more than welcome to think Maverick is playable, but for people attending real tournaments, it's not, and hasn't been for a long time. I don't understand this quest to prove it was a good deck or is a good deck. Things go in and out all the time, and Maverick's just been out. Winning an FNM is great, but don't think the results of that FNM are going to win you a PTQ or an Open. It's much better for players to aim to play decks that win in larger fields and its proof of power and consistency. In terms of the B/R list, if a deck is performing too well it needs to be looked at. The last few weeks of Open data have showed a tremendous amount of diversity which is a sign of a good format. Maybe Maverick with Sylvan Basilisk would cure your ills. Decay proof, Bolt proof, and TNN can't block it profitably either.

Self fulfilling prophecy is self fulfilling.

For whatever it's worth, Punishing Maverick did get a Top 8 finish at the Bazaar of Moxen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSCK

You're more than welcome to think Maverick is playable, but for people attending real tournaments, it's not, and hasn't been for a long time. I don't understand this quest to prove it was a good deck or is a good deck. Things go in and out all the time, and Maverick's just been out. Winning an FNM is great, but don't think the results of that FNM are going to win you a PTQ or an Open. It's much better for players to aim to play decks that win in larger fields and its proof of power and consistency. In terms of the B/R list, if a deck is performing too well it needs to be looked at. The last few weeks of Open data have showed a tremendous amount of diversity which is a sign of a good format. Maybe Maverick with Sylvan Basilisk would cure your ills. Decay proof, Bolt proof, and TNN can't block it profitably either.

---

0/10, Obvious Troll is Obvious. I suggest just ignoring the trolls who completely ignore any sort of actual data thats put in front of them. FWIW, Maverick actually was in the DTB forum quite recently, I think maybe last month? Clearly a dead deck :rolleyes:

If nobody plays a deck because the internet instructs them not to then the number of placements will dwindle. 90% of the people who play SCGs / GPs are just reading whatever the internet has to offer from their favorite acronym writer, copying a 75 that they can afford and heading off to the event. Nothing wrong with that, but it's how it is. People speaking in absolutes like "G/w CAN'T WIN ANYTHING" just sound stupid.

HSCK, your insistence on not acknowledging thecouncil's data is quite puzzling. I'm not quite sure why you believe that the only relevant tourney data comes from SCG Opens and BoM. You do understand that for every 1 SCG Open (129+) there are probably 10 mid-sized tourneys (30-50+), right? I mean, when you're talking about what the overall meta looks like, narrowing your pool of data to just 129+ player tourneys gives you an incredibly small sample size to draw any conclusions from.

You claim that I'm "skewing the data" by including all results (regardless of tourney size, I count it) yet you believe that cherry picking a handful of large tourneys out of dozens and dozens gives you a more accurate meta representation? Are you being serious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSCK

Because 36 player floors are still too small. I don't think anything under 50 is really that useful, and the most useful data's going to come from Opens or BoM type tournaments, at which Maverick has been a non-factor for a long time. So averaging 9th with your data is really misleading, because it didn't perform well at all at important tournaments. I'm fine with TC data...if it excludes random 19-50 person tourneys.

---

Why is 50 a better floor than 36? You have to draw a cut-off somewhere. Do you have rationale for 50 being "big enough" and 36 "not big enough", or does the 0 just look really sexy with all its curves but lack of love handles? Why not set the floor higher and count only SCGs, GPs, etc.? Or at least 65 to have min. 7 rounds?

How is a 6-round 51-man tourney better data than a 6-man 45-man tourney? How is the 6-round 45-man tourney as poor data as a 19-man event, barely bigger than a 4-round 16-man where half top8. I think a floor based on a functional value is better than one based on a nice round number.


Possible reasons for 36:
-33+ means at least 6 rounds and <25% top 8.
-In probability and statistics, with n>30 you can generalize from the Binomial distribution to a Normal distribution (i.e. sample size is big enough to smooth out to a bell curve shape, except for rare events)

Taking top8 finish from a 36-man seems fine to me. Taking top16 (or even 9th place, since it's just based on tiebreakers) from 36-man events does seem sketchier.

What you could do is, instead of looking at final placing in a mid-sized event like that, just extract their match records against other top decks across all those events and match them up.
(e.g. Jund was X-Y vs Esperblade, A-B against RUG, etc. )
That might be a more meaningful extrapolation of data from smaller events, where the individual match results are useful to know but event placing is more subject to variance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

I am so sick of reading: Brainstorm can't be banned because it's why we play Legacy in the first place.

Maybe that is true for you but this ain't about your pet-card. Brainstorm makes blue decks too consistent and this wasn't so much of a problem before because hand-shaping alone doesn't win you games, you also need the tools to win the game. Because blue got creatures like Delver and TNN it kind of has everything all the other colors stand for and it has more then enough tools to win.

---

Obviously the real offenders are TNN and Delver, not BS. You even wrote it: "hand-shaping alone doesn't win you games, you also need the tools to win the game" and this leads me to question: if you'd have the power, would you rather ban BS (to stop unmulligans and to open space for future tools to win the game), or would you rather ban the Delver and TNN (the overpowered tools) and kept BS alive.
Both approaches are valid, imho. If BS is too powerful that it limits future design, makes it too easy to dig for bombs, or w/e, then it should get the axe. Otoh, library manipulation is blue's domain.
If TNN and Delver break the color pie by the fact that they are too good for blue threats, they might be banned. Otoh, this doesn't solve the trouble of future broken cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

I think banning Brainstorm is an option. Maybe not a popular one at first but I am starting to get sick of "play blue or go home". Banning Brainstorm would be a first step into a more versatile and colored meta-game. Banning Brainstorm would hit decks as Show and Tell or Blade/TNN decks without having to ban TNN or S&T.

---

I would be sad if WotC bans BS, esp. as I just got my Chinese ones. But I could live with the fact of ban.
The trouble with blue and Legacy is that library manipulation (and raw card draw) are the most important aspects of game and they are quite limited to blue. With every new set and every new Commander, the pool of broekn cards will be bigger and bigger, unil it may come to the point where BS would be too powerful (see Vintage). Is it yet? IDK...
Maybe it'll be good to iprove other colors and give them library manipulation and/or card selection, call it as you wish. But if this would lead to even more bomby format... I once again don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

If Brainstorm is off-limits than blue needs to be nerfed somewhere else, obvious place is TNN. This card only made things worse, almost everyone that is just a little bit honest, agrees the card isn't fun at all. So why put up with this shit. Ban the thing and go back to the meta before november 1. It wasn't a very bad meta. Ok, Brainstorm and blue was everywhere but it wasn't as bad as it is now.

---

Yep. But R&D (or Maro or whoever responsible) should also consider their design patterns. It's not like they're really abstemious when it comes to (mainly blue) overpowered crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

Think about this for a moment: two great players, Max Tietze and Jim Davis have played with Goblins the last few years. Now they are converts to the "Play blue or go home" camp because they want to win and don't see any other option but blue. These are just two players, imagine how many more Tietze's and Davis's there are right now!

---

I'd say there are some more of them... :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

Obviously the real offenders are Serra Angel and Millstone, not Ancestral Recall. You even wrote it: "hand-shaping alone doesn't win you games, you also need the tools to win the game"

---

Interesting opinion.

I understand that they won't ban Brainstorm because too many people will pitch a fit, but we should at least be honest and acknowledge that by all criteria we use to ban cards in a normal business order- unless you think the list has to be kept down to ten cards or something- Brainstorm should be banned. It is significantly better than a number of cards on the banned list that probably shouldn't come off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

...
The trouble with blue and Legacy is that library manipulation (and raw card draw) are the most important aspects of game and they are quite limited to blue. With every new set and every new Commander, the pool of broken cards will be bigger and bigger, unil it may come to the point where BS would be too powerful (see Vintage). Is it yet? IDK...

---

Blue also gets the best stack manipulation, and got some very strong fast creatures recently. R&D has serious blinders when it comes to blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

Blue also gets the best stack manipulation, and got some very strong fast creatures recently. R&D has serious blinders when it comes to blue.

---

Three of the four best creatures in the format- Delver, TNN, and Griselbrand- are blue, and the fourth (Tarmogoyf) is played in blue decks and Jund and that's it afaict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Three of the four best creatures in the format- Delver, TNN, and Griselbrand- are blue, and the fourth (Tarmogoyf) is played in blue decks and Jund and that's it afaict.

---

Would have listed SFM and DRS there too to get a relation and hammer the fact that all those are played in blue decks ... Whatever.



Blitz-Edit: Can we ban the first guy pointing out that Griselbrand is not blue and costing 3 mana total? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Three of the four best creatures in the format- Delver, TNN, and Griselbrand- are blue, and the fourth (Tarmogoyf) is played in blue decks and Jund and that's it afaict.

---

In B/R Thread:

Blue = Blue
Green = Blue
Black = Blue

So DRS = Double Blue?

Also, I just learned today that Show and Tell is actually a creature card that is immune to Remove Soul. The more you know!

I would state, that all 1cc and 1x cards are, in fact, blue...


LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

I think that Delver is Serra Angel, TNN is Millstone, and Brainstorm is Ancestral Recall. Also, Prozac combined with mescalin is the nuts.

---

Interesting opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Three of the four best creatures in the format- Delver, TNN, and Griselbrand- are blue, and the fourth (Tarmogoyf) is played in blue decks and Jund and that's it afaict.

---

Of all the creatures in the "best creature" poll:

Stoneforge Mystic = Oath of Druids = blue
Griselbrand = blue
Tarmogoyf = blue
Delver of Secrets = blue
True Name I'm actually not that good = blue
Deathrite Shaman = 2nd best blue planeswalker, honorable mention on the "creature" list
Emrakul, the Aeons Torn = blue
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben = white
Dark Confidant = black
Hammerfist Giant = red

Of the non-blue ones, only one clearly wins in a bar fight.

WotC should either stop printing such good blue creatures or start printing more Hammerfist Giants

Delver can be explained, TNN being blue? I have no idea.

Delver was made for modern. Simple. In Modern, blue is the worst colour. It is a splash colour for some decks and used in a few second tier control builds. So Wizards tried to buff it the way they buff decks these days. They gave it a creature. Not creative, but that's the way the game is now. They are pushing Tempo of the identity of choice for Modern Blue. The trickle down effect on legacy... Yea.

TNN on the other hand was just Wizards. Not sure what they where thinking.

As for Green=Blue being a joke, Goyf was "The best blue card in the game" for a dam long time. Black tends to go hand in hand with Blue as well. There is a good reason underground costs more that a play set of some other duals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedleeds

If nobody plays a deck because the internet instructs them not to then the number of placements will dwindle. 90% of the people who play SCGs / GPs are just reading whatever the internet has to offer from their favorite acronym writer, copying a 75 that they can afford and heading off to the event.

---

I'm actually quite dubious about this. I'd expect that 90% of the people who play in those have maybe one or two decks and just play the one they actually have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Delver can be explained, TNN being blue? I have no idea.

Delver was made for modern. Simple. In Modern, blue is the worst colour. It is a splash colour for some decks and used in a few second tier control builds. So Wizards tried to buff it the way they buff decks these days. They gave it a creature. Not creative, but that's the way the game is now. They are pushing Tempo of the identity of choice for Modern Blue. The trickle down effect on legacy... Yea.

---

Modern was created like one month before Innistrad came out. There is no freaking way Delver of Secrets was created to have any effect on Modern, because by that point the set was finalized and was being printed.

Not to mention that, at least looking at the Top 8 of the Pro Tour Philadelphia, Blue was the best color at the time in the format, with 6 decks in it having Blue in them. Black was the worst, having 0 decks in the Top 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

Not to mention that, at least looking at the Top 8 of the Pro Tour Philadelphia, Blue was the best color at the time in the format, with 6 decks in it having Blue in them. Black was the worst, having 0 decks in the Top 8.

---

That's why they printed Delver. Blue needed a boost. Every Spike knows there should be blue cards in 8/8 top decks.

I stand corrected.

Still I stand by my comments on black. In legacy, black is the colour that matters after blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

I stand corrected.

Still I stand by my comments on black. In legacy, black is the colour that matters after blue.

---

Strong Legacy Black cards:
Dark Confidant
Thoughtseize
Inquisition of Kozilek
Tombstalker
Deathrite Shaman
Liliana of the Veil
Griselbrand
Dismember
Abrupt Decay
Cabal Therapy
Hymn to Tourach
some degenerate combo enablers that would be banned in Modern either way

Subset of these legal in Modern:
Dark Confidant
Thoughtseize
Inquisition of Kozilek
Tombstalker
Deathrite Shaman
Liliana of the Veil
Griselbrand
Dismember
Abrupt Decay

Yeah, Modern really got screwed on the black cards.

FTW, why would I post "Underground (sea)" and "Legacy" If I was talking about black in modern?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

FTW, why would I post "Underground (sea)" and "Legacy" If I was talking about black in modern?

---

It's a pain to cycle back and forth between pages.

You were talking about Blue in Modern. Black in modern was mentioned. I thought "my comments on black" also linked to the statement about black being worst in Modern, which was Lord Seth not you. Oops.

If it is worst in Modern, my point was that was a separate issue from the power level of black cards they are printing... most strong black cards in Legacy are also modern playable. New printings in black seem fine. Blue, however, needs a boost in neither Modern nor Legacy yet is strongly affected by the power level of new cards printed. WTF.

Standard is dominated by mono-blue aggro...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FTW

It's a pain to cycle back and forth between pages.

You were talking about Blue in Modern. Black in modern was mentioned. I thought "my comments on black" also linked to the statement about black being worst in Modern, which was Lord Seth not you. Oops.

---

Then perhaps you should have read what I actually said, namely:
"Not to mention that, at least looking at the Top 8 of the Pro Tour Philadelphia, Blue was the best color at the time in the format, with 6 decks in it having Blue in them. Black was the worst, having 0 decks in the Top 8."

I mean, I kinda clearly said "at the time" and was talking about Pro Tour Philadelphia, which happened about a month after the format was created. Heck, 4 of the cards you listed (Liliana of the Veil, Deathrite Shaman, Abrupt Decay, and Griselbrand) weren't even released at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

Not to mention that, at least looking at the Top 8 of the Pro Tour Philadelphia, Blue was the best color at the time in the format, with 6 decks in it having Blue in them. Black was the worst, having 0 decks in the Top 8.

---

To be fair, 7/8 decks were playing lands that tapped for Red and 8/8 decks were playing Red cards so I'd contend that Red was the best color at the start of Modern, but that's not particularly relevant to the Legacy B&R list.

In reality I think WotC just needs to print solid cards outside of Blue that are harder to play in Blue, they need to give more incentive to non-blue decks. Spirt of the Labyrinth is an awesome card in this respect because its an aggressive beater that punishes decks that try to be greedy by counting on cantrips to smooth their draws. However its symmetrical so you have to play it in a deck that can generate CA outside of drawing cards, hence it can't be played in the blue decks. Unfortunately I'm not sure it will make a huge splash at the moment because its extremely fragile with everyone and their mother playing Golgari Charm, Zealous Persecution, Toxic Deluge, etc.

At the same time WotC needs to stop printing dumb pushed aggressive creatures in Blue like TNN and to a lesser extent Delver of Secrets. These cards basically fill a hole in Blue's power level since up until recently, Blue never got very many powerful aggressive creatures as that wasn't really in its part of the color pie.

Finally, I don't think that TNN is a good thing to have in Legacy in the long run, it may not have the pure results to be banned at the moment but I do think it will constrain the format eventually. I do see Non-Blue Midrange getting pushed out of the top tier since its very hard to beat both the fair decks and the unfair decks if you're not playing Blue. In addition I think TNN will also prevent new creature decks from rising up due to the splash hate from TNN hating other creature decks out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

Then perhaps you should have read what I actually said,

---

Yeah, what I meant was I'm not contesting anything you said. I was replying to a merger of the two comments that was a non-point that no one was making. I stand the point I tried to make. I think it's quite valid; it just doesn't contradict anyone else.

In a nut shell --> WotC should stop printing broken blue creatures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Would have listed SFM and DRS there too to get a relation and hammer the fact that all those are played in blue decks ... Whatever.



Blitz-Edit: Can we ban the first guy pointing out that Griselbrand is not blue and costing 3 mana total? Thanks.

---

I support it.

Sometimes he costs BB or 1BB, although even then you're still mostly blue as a deck so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

It is significantly better than a number of cards on the banned list that probably shouldn't come off.

---

Lets see here, taking into account the number of decks brainstorm can be played in, brainstorm is better than: Black Vise, Channel (maybe), Earthcraft, Frantic Search, Flash (maybe), Mana Drain, Memory Jar, Mind Twist, Mind's Desire and Mystical Tutor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

Lets see here, taking into account the number of decks brainstorm can be played in, brainstorm is better than: Black Vise, Channel (maybe), Earthcraft, Frantic Search, Flash (maybe), Mana Drain, Memory Jar, Mind Twist, Mind's Desire and Mystical Tutor.

---

Although I dislike the phrase, there is really only one response that can be given to this post:

Lolwut?:eyebrow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPoJohnson

Although I dislike the phrase, there is really only one response that can be given to this post:

Lolwut?:eyebrow:

---

Where would you put it? I'm thinking same as mental misstep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feaor

To be fair, 7/8 decks were playing lands that tapped for Red and 8/8 decks were playing Red cards so I'd contend that Red was the best color at the start of Modern, but that's not particularly relevant to the Legacy B&R list.

---

Blazing Shoal Infect played Red cards, but it had no intention of casting a single one of those I wouldn't count it as a Red deck. Though you're correct that there was more Red than Blue, with 7/8 of the decks actually planning to cast Red cards, so it probably would be fair to say that Red was the best, with Blue in second place, at least at that early point in the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

Lets see here, taking into account the number of decks brainstorm can be played in, brainstorm is better than: Black Vise, Channel (maybe), Earthcraft, Frantic Search, Flash (maybe), Mana Drain, Memory Jar, Mind Twist, Mind's Desire and Mystical Tutor.

---

Someone please sig this. I want a laugh like this every few days or so.

Dude whatever, I want Frantic Search legal because I can go back to casting my favorite 4/4 Trampler for 2G EOT. Oh whatever okay it's better in combo lolol shhhh stfu

sent from phone, don't be a dick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

Dude whatever, I want Frantic Search legal because I can go back to casting my favorite 4/4 Trampler for 2G EOT. Oh whatever okay it's better in combo lolol shhhh stfu

sent from phone, don't be a dick

---

Those days are over bro. I miss u/g madness probably more than most, but that deck is dead.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I want to see the following unbanned:

Black Vise
Earthcraft
Frantic Search
Mana Drain
Memory Jar
Mind Twist
Survival of the Fittest
Yawgmoth's Bargain

I honestly don't think any of these cards would "break" the format. Survival would absolutely NOT be dominant in this modern world of Legacy. Yawg Bargain gets the nod over Desire in the list because countermagic is just as effective against Bargain as it is against the current ANT builds. Mind's Desire, on the other hand, is way too difficult for non-black fair decks to reasonably interact with. It's sad that the cost of Mana Drain is so prohibitive, because that would be a very cool card in Legacy, especially with some of these strong combo cards coming off the list to balance things out.

Unbanning mana drain will drive it's price up only. Cool card tho but I don't think it will be healthy for the format. Besides the price, people will just bitch about blue getting stronger.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheerios

Unbanning mana drain will drive it's price up only. Cool card tho but I don't think it will be healthy for the format. Besides the price, people will just bitch about blue getting stronger.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

---

For sure. I'm happy with blue as is; ecstatic, even. Quite frankly, I don't want blue to get anything new or unbanned. I can't afford it. Give red something new. That color gets the shaft daily.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Control decks and esperblade decks are already playing counterspells in some number (2-4). Mana drain would be a 4-of in any deck playing Jace (and probably more, that card is the definition of tempo!). Also, turn 3 Jaces would be stupid.

On the results issue, I would weight any tournament with less than 33 players to be of lesser value when determining the metagame. The reason for this is that it reduces the effect that variance has on a placing.