Printable View
I don't think those need bannings, not because they're unfun, but because (in current Legacy) they're not particularly good. Decks with land destruction as the primary focus haven't been viable for quite some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Well, to be fair. It's not like any card currently considered not fun is a weak card in power level. Like, no one is saying Chub Toads are not fun. Quite the contrary. Chub Toads are loads of fun. See?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
One could argue that a format where everybody plays the same deck could be the most competitive since variance in lowered (deck choice).Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
I don't suppose anybody would enjoy such a format, however competitive it might be. This is why you cannot simply look at the competitive aspect and not at other things.
WOTC basically already did this, which is why Stone Rain is never coming back. If you want to blow up a land, you're going to be paying 4 or more for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
For Legacy specifically, the best land destruction spell costs U.
That would be because the cards people complain about under the pretense of being 'unfun' are almost always cards that they do not run and either shut their deck down (as they see it), or help their opponent win in ways they do not like.Quote:
Originally Posted by menace13
It also has a tendency to be used as a scapegoat for a players own failings/weakensses. Counterspell is a classic example of a "unfun" card because to many people can not stand having their spells not resolve, exagerate the effects of it and zero in on it as the "reason" that they lost when they could have won had they played better (I have seen way to many rants over the years about "unfun decks" that "counter everything" when they have 6 or less counters main deck).
One of magic's greatest strengths as a game is that you can make different decks that attack your opponent from different angles and along different axies of play. However too often players complain about decks that do not interact the same way they do (drop creature, turn it sideways) as being "unfun" and "unfair" because those decks tend to have a defense and attack from an angel that they are not prepared to defend against, even when there are ways they could easily defend against those decks.
It seems you missed the second part of my post. Can I interest you in the varied intricacies of the Mono-Black Devotion vs. Mono-Blue Devotion match up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
I don't know where the idea shifted: when the brainstorm supporters were saying that it was fun to them I could respect it, even if I thought otherwise. Now the trend is to say that fun doesn't matter? Jesus H Christ, that's a load of horseshit. Competition isn't at odds with fun. You can have a high powered and diverse meta. If you're really so afraid of tournament variance, go play standard.
Could also be that cards people deemed unfun are played because theyre the best slot by far. Polarizing deck lists to answer them, run them, or lose to them. Too many times players crutch on to something dominant because lack of skill to not be hand held by outright stifling design of ubiquitous cards and decks. Fearful of bans because theyll no longer have such a parachute to make up for failing in play skill. Easily defending against a deck doesnt make anything less powerful. The decks and cards in discussion are almost always backed by perpetual blue shells. The fact that the b&r list for legacy has more blue cards banned on it than any other color is telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmcc13
Is it truly hard to believe that folks can deem a subset of cards as "unfun" without scapegoating? I think you underestimate many players or just play with those who complain a lot. I'm sure there are many delver.dec players who agree that a card such as Wasteland or Hymn could be considered not very enjoyable to play against, even though they are running such cards themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmcc13
Regarding your argument of different angles of attack, years of design and card choices has narrowed down those viable ways to attack to a smaller subset of cards to even the point where no interaction between the pieces has to be really considered. With cards such as Delver, Stoneforge, Goyf, Wasteland, Bolt, StP, Brainstorm, Force, etc. you can just jam these most efficient and effect threats in a deck and call it a day.
Just a thought, but when I am playing for money, your fun doesn't mean a dam thing to me. On a Tuesday night, yea I will play for fun. But on a Sunday fucking get with it. I am going to play the meanest, most effective thing I can. I don't care if I waste everything you have, Stifle everything and smack you to death with a Goyf, on that day, winning is everything and your just in my way.
So when someone talks about fun in legacy, I tune out, because on a weekday game at your local store I assume we are all there for fun, but at an event, sit down, shut up and play the dam game. Because at that point, fun is not even in this solar system.
Hello
this Idea never shifted for me I just removed the excuses out of it for both sides. Playing Brainstorm for fun is as much as an excuse as saying counterspell is unfun to play against for the lack of a better stratgy against it.Quote:
bakofried
I don't know where the idea shifted: when the brainstorm supporters were saying that it was fun to them I could respect it, even if I thought otherwise. Now the trend is to say that fun doesn't matter? Jesus H Christ, that's a load of horseshit. Competition isn't at odds with fun. You can have a high powered and diverse meta. If you're really so afraid of tournament variance, go play standard.
Also I think you donīt want to understand or are not able to do because I allready said that it actually makes fun to play in competition but this requires the right mindset which is not I go with my pet deck their and expect to win, ok if you pet deck is a deck to beat this can happen, but go their to win and play the deck out of the competitive ones which suits yiu the most. This will also prevent whining about the seminlgy to strong card etc.
[QUOTE] menace13
Could also be that cards people deemed unfun are played because theyre the best slot by far. Polarizing deck lists to answer them, run them, or lose to them. Too many times players crutch on to something dominant because lack of skill to not be hand held by outright stifling design of ubiquitous cards and decks. Fearful of bans because theyll no longer have such a parachute to make up for failing. [Quote]
That is simply not right I mean if you play in a cometition there is no fear there is only one thought which decks are the most efficient ones and which of them I can play to the best of my ability to win. That is the reason why you donīt see so much diversity because proven consitensy is higher evaluated.
If someone actually invent a new gvreat deck this would happen before a tournement and the testing too.
That is totally right and at the local Gamestore event you can just agree to ban so called unfun cards to provide a frame were everybody can have fun but then you would lose one opportunity to test your deck for the real competition. So here you have to descide but when you decide against the ban again donīt come and say the card x is unfun because actually only your deck is lacking at answers and then you shoud solve this problem first instead of making excuses.Quote:
Dice_Box
So when someone talks about fun in legacy, I tune out, because on a weekday game at your local store I assume we are all there for fun, but at an event, sit down, shut up and play the dam game. Because at that point, fun is not even in this solar system.
Best Regards Teveshszat
If your motivation to play Magic is to win money, especially Legacy, you are unfathomably bad at decision making and optimization and you should probably just give someone else power of attorney over everything you do for the rest of your life because it's going to be damn close to impossible for them to do a worse job of it than you.
Winning money is a side effect of being good at Magic that a pretty small number of people enjoy on anything like a regular basis, and a much larger number of people aspire to, usually pretty shittily and grumpily.
But it is a side effect.
There are lots of tournament scenes where you could make money and lots of other more profitable career options for that matter. Try again. You don't play Magic to make money, at any level of competitiveness. So why?
There's a bunch of posts saying, fun is subjective so we can't do anything with it, so I'll just briefly reply to them all:
So what? What the fuck are you talking about? Everything normative is subjective. It is a subjective opinion that it is better to live than die. "Good" is not less subjective than "fun," but "good" is the guiding principle in personal morality and ethics and decision-making, in state policy, in law. In things a lot more important (in a subjective analysis) than a game of Magic.
And the idea that banned list decisions aren't made on the basis of fun ignores Wizards' stated reasons for every banned list decision ever. Fun is indeed their primary motive (well their primary motive is profit, but to that end our fun is presumed to be our primary motive, correctly.)
HrishiQQ basically demolishes this argument, which is why everyone seems to have ignored his post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HrishiQQ
I don't play magic to win money, I play for a few reasons. It is good for meeting people, it helps with critical and lateral thinking, it offers me a challenge and I enjoy that challenge. That's why I play Legacy over kitchen table. Because there is real challenge there.
But I separate those two. There is no reason that Legacy itself must be this the pinnacle of all fun. It's a format made for a challenge, made to test you mentally and I guess monetary. It's something that, I can enjoy playing on a Tuesday night with whatever I have at hand, but on Sunday I play for keeps. That's the separation. It's fun when it's social. When you and your mates are hanging out, when the guy that brings SnT gets heckled and everyone else has a great time. That's where the fun is. But when we are playing on a Sunday, your all in my way.
Because on that day, I am there for the challenge, bring your best, bring your toughest. Bring the most broken shit on that day. Because then, we are all playing for keeps and then nothing is sacred. That's what I mean. Yes I am playing for money, but that only heightens the tension. The prize is a goal, but not the ends itself. That challenge, metal, social, that's what it's about. I am not there to make you have fun, I am there to beat you into the floor.
To me, that feeling mixed with the real challenge of it, that's why I play. Because I am happy to throw a game on a weekday. Have fun, enjoy it and all be friends. But that rush, when I can get it, now that's why I play. Fun be dammed. I play to beat you. Your just another body o have to step over, go get out of my way.
Hope I answered your question.
Sent from my mobile, forgive spelling and grammatical errors.
It's actually totally right. What the fuck does fear have to do with any of this? Obviously we ARE all going to play the best deck that we can. The reason why we dont see diversity is because of design of certain cards that are just plainly better than counterparts. Some people cannot see this and cling to their crutches because of lack of play skill. They need something that gives free win % points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
I dont know how you can be more wrong. Maybe you misunderstood because there is a language barrier. No one here is saying we cant beat this so ban it. That is simply false. Very rarely is something so oppressive it must be banned. Even in times of something being so warping people play cards to beat it. This narrows down the deck pool and stifles creativity because it is simply much better than everything else all around. Take Mystical Tutor. It was in the 2 best decks at the time of it's banning. Why was it banned? Think slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Many cards are unfun. Misstep to most was unfun and narrowed down the field to mostly blue decks. To me this is great fun, less diversity makes it easier for me to sb, meta against, and test/prepare for. Apparently an entire field of blue decks is unfun for most of our player base, so... Youre lacking insight and clearly spouting off erroneously. Take Flash as another example. Was it banned because it dominated the format. Or did they not allow it and took swift action against turn 1 capable blue decks? Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Metal Misstep was banned for converging the colours, flash is broken, as is Black Lotus in this format. I don't see your point.
What I am saying is you can say "Brainstorm is bad for the format because of X" and I will read what you have to say, but if you say "Brainstorm is not fun for me" then I don't care. Because that is subjective and should not be a measuring stick I should have to use. Because I am not you and I likely play the game for different reasons to you. This means saying a card is unfun is to me like saying "All cards in the new boarder should be banned because I don't like it." That's not a valid reason and opinions change dependent on who you ask.
I have no doubt you believe this but it isn't true. I know it's not true because there are many games that are more challenging than Magic. No less an authority than Jon Finkel, for instance, observed that one of the prime reasons people play Magic is because of the large luck element, because random scrubs can beat him, whereas a game like chess it's all skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Not to mention any number of other games that are about equally skill-testing as Magic, some with much larger EVs in dollar terms for skill.
I know it sounds good to you and to others in this thread to say, "I'm not about having fun, I'm here for some kind of pure raw spirit of abstract competition" or whatever, but no.
It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't throw out internet tough guyisms like this.Quote:
I am not there to make you have fun, I am there to beat you into the floor.
Anyway, okay, you get a dopamine rush from serious competition. Hint: That's a form of fun.
There is a competitive vs. casual split in fun, but that is not what anyone itt is talking about. No one has suggested making the format more casual-friendly particularly, so this is a non-sequitor.
The argument is about making the game more fun. And stagnant metagames, while some people might find them comfortable because they don't require testing several areas of skill like adaptability, gauging the meta, creative deck design and sideboarding- are and have generally been viewed historically as "not fun," precisely because they don't test those skills.
You might be right that it maximizes your chances of winning to keep the format stagnant if those are skills you're worse at- but then really you're the one begging for the format to stay less competitive, less skill-testing, in order to give you an advantage.
Also:
What? First of all, no, it explicitly wasn't; Wizards was very clear that they thought the card was problematic for increasing blue presence in the meta. Second of all, how would that be problematic in a fun-less perpsective?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
What the fuck do you mean by "broken"?Quote:
flash is broken, as is Black Lotus in this format. I don't see your point.
Actually, quite a number of people loved Caw-Blade Standard for the reasons you just gave.Quote:
Originally Posted by HrishiQQ
Granted, a substantially higher number of people didn't like that Standard environment, but the level of skill required in the Caw-Blade mirror was something some players really enjoyed.
Hello,
first I thank you for the great posts because its makes my day better.
But now I have to move to the scond part
Nope I there is no language barrier in understanding but in writing thank for my grammar problem. Ang again I think you donīt get the point I want to make that there is a other mindset for competetive events then for just the dayly duels.Quote:
menace13
I dont know how you can be more wrong. Maybe you misunderstood because there is a language barrier. No one here is saying we cant beat this so ban it. That is simply false. Very rarely is something so oppressive it must be banned. Even in times of something being so warping people play cards to beat it. This narrows down the deck pool and stifles creativity because it is simply much better than everything else all around. Take Mystical Tutor. It was in the 2 best decks at the time of it's banning. Why was it banned? Think slowly.
So I explain it this time as clear as possible
Mindest 1 ( Play to Win)
I want to win so I will evaluate each card after their strenght and play the best card in the given slot. Therefore I play the best given deck in my category to be able to
win. This also includes not to blame a card to be to stong but find an answer against it or if it is stronger then most other cards play it myself because the only important thing is the win. This not includes that you will not have fun because if you have this mindset winning=Fun and so are hard strugles against euqal decks.
Mind Set 2 (Play for fun)
this mindset is given to most player which want to play normaly but not regularly on greater events. Here you search for an entertaining way to be with your friends and
get time going. You evaluate cards after their strenght but sometimes decide to not play them because they are to strong or make the game against the decks which are playing them not fair for your current deck you want to play like the Counterspell stopping linear strategys which are based on 1 spell resolving.
So for tournments you will clearly be better of with mindset 1 and then you will have fun again because you now will not have the problem of thinking cards are to strong when they are not.
I have to ask you not forget the grade of information in your example. Chess is a game with perfect information you can see, if skilled enough, all possible moves of the opponent. Magic in contrast to it is agame with incomplete information and mainly a sytsem were you win through resource management (cards,mana,life etc). What you think is luck is just possibility and is the reason why Recall, Brainstorm, Fetchlands,Top and Jace are so good because they increase consistency reduce variances and help you to play the game in your terms. Luck is hardly the reason you lose but your deck and how you bulided it is and ofcourse how you use the recources you have. Yes I addmit luck is not completly out of the spectrum of reasons why you lose but is not that often this reason as you might think.Quote:
TheInfamousBearAssassin
I have no doubt you believe this but it isn't true. I know it's not true because there are many games that are more challenging than Magic. No less an authority than Jon Finkel, for instance, observed that one of the prime reasons people play Magic is because of the large luck element, because random scrubs can beat him, whereas a game like chess it's all skill.
That is right but not in the way you might thinnk. Yes the blue precence increasded drasticly but because of each deck was able to play Missstep thanks to the Mana cost and this led to the ting that all decks were partly blue even if they would normaly be mono Red Goblins.Quote:
what? First of all, no, it explicitly wasn't; Wizards was very clear that they thought the card was problematic for increasing blue presence in the meta.
That a counter which is able to counter any first turn play and camn played by all deck in addtion to starts like mountain lacky or Island top etc problamatic
is clear and therefore it was a reason to ban Missstep.
Ah for the onyl one deck discussion it was ver cool to play Ravanger back in Mirrodin Type 2 because the mirror was one of the hardest to play I can imagine in Type 2.
Also I donīt like Type 2 at the moment only because of the reason that Wizzards gave in to the no spell based deck whining and is printing not good Control and Counterspells anymore which kicked out the archetype I like to play ( creature less control).
Best Regards Teveshszat
Anyway, I have said what I wanted to say, I think mostly in my last post before this one. So I will part from this talk here. If you wish to continue this discourse, feel free to PM me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
You know the irony is that when Hulk-Flash was legal, there was a substantial contingent- even after the disaster of GP Columbus- that accused anyone who thought the card should be banned for being, as you say, "busted," of being casual n00bs who should go back to the kitchen table.
Any argument predicated on the notion that a call for banning means that the people involved are only interested in casual Magic can be and should be dismissed out of hand as ignorant straw-manning.
Any card on the list is broken, as in black lotus in this format. I dont see your point. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Flash only had one tournament. In that GP is took 3 top 8s. Banned shortly after. How did we see it is broken? How did the format attempt to adjust? Was it banned because it was too powerful and made the games UNFUN? Couldnt possibly be any correlation to fun and health and balance to a format? Only an idiot wouldnt see this. Why not unban Black Lotus? It's certainly fun to play with, isnt it? Right.
This is much of an I'm casual fun, keep my pet deck good as it is an I'm on crutches keep my pet dominant. Which is to say it isnt.
We're mostly all adults here or not young children. We all compete, we will all play the best deck we can to maximize our chances of winning. What you and Tesz seem to not be able to grasp is No one is even talking about that. It's like, a discussion on cards turns into You dont like it dont play.. Well then unban everything because I like it all, is perfectly reasonable in that regard as an other extreme.
Their posts aren't the brightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
To change the subject, briefly - is it reasonable to discuss unbanning Mana Vault? I could easily be wrong about this, but it seems that current Storm decks are sufficiently color intensive and already stocked on Rituals that they wouldn't be totally thrilled to have an effectively one-shot mana rock/colorless Dark Ritual. For the same reason, I doubt that UB or UBR Tezzeret would run it. That (in my estimation) leaves Affinity and MUD as potential homes for it, and neither of those decks is exactly dominating the metagame. Am I totally off base? Is this just going to result in Affinity ruining everyone? Or would unbanning Vault just make Affinity and MUD more competitive?
Chalice is also probably just better than Vault in a Tezz build.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
My initial thought is that Mana Vault makes a turn one Trinisphere far too easy.
Reasonable to discuss, sure. Safe to unban? IMO not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
The fact that the vault stays in play is a big deal for cards like Goblin Welder or Trash For Treasure. :3: is useful for casting a bunch of strong cards like Goblin Charbelcher,Birthing Pod,Past in Flames, Faith's Reward, Gifts Ungiven, Dream Halls or Empty the Warrens. Heck, it's a fine accelerant to use for Intution or Show and Tell.
Edit: I wonder about the potential of Retract/Hurkyl's Recall with it as an artifact storm engine.
The problem is in decks that would abuse vault it doesn't have a real drawback. It's just a strict upgrade to Grim Monolith and powers out super broken things on turn 1 at worst, and at best ends the game with belcher or storm fairly easily. Plus I don't think we don't want to go down the vintage route of having turn 1 lodestone golem be a thing that shows up too often.
The thing with those cards is that Welder currently doesn't have a home in any major archetype other than Painter, and he's far from broken there. Trash for Treasure isn't played in any deck, as far as I know. It is relevant for Belcher, but Belcher would still be a glass cannon even with Vault, so I'm not sure that it becomes a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
I guess it would get played in Show and Tell decks because it's good for both Dream Halls and Sneak Attack, but both of those strategies are already built to be slower than they have to be in order to be more resilient, and I'm not sure that Vault changes that. Gifts Ungiven isn't played at all anymore, nor is Faith's Reward (which I'm not sure was ever widely played in Legacy). So sure, it accelerates two Storm cards, but is it better for Storm decks than Rite of Flame or Dark Ritual? I guess you could build some sort of blue/artifact Storm deck that used Chromatic Sphere for color fixing, but I'm not sure that would be good enough to keep Vault banned.
So there are legitimate concerns, and I think Vault would see play, but I'm not convinced that it's still banworthy. It's not an obvious candidate for unbanning like Black Vise or Earthcraft, but it's debatable like Mind Twist, Mental Misstep, or Survival.
The thing is that you would need to have two very specific four-ofs (Trinisphere and Vault) and a land to make it work, and then you're not very far ahead unless you led on a Sol land or have one to follow up your first land. The thing that got Trinisphere restricted in Vintage isn't that it could come down on turn 1, it's the fact that a huge proportion of hands out of Workshop decks were capable of dropping Trinisphere on turn 1, basically ending the game there because the acceleration was either cheap, reusable artifact mana (Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Moxen) or Shop itself, making the effect even more asymmetric than it otherwise would be. We don't have either of those issues in Legacy, and the decks that are interested in turn 1 Trinisphere aren't being kept out of tier 1 for lack of consistent turn 1 Trinisphere. And this ignores the fact that if you did lead on Sol land, Vault, Trinisphere, you're down 3 cards in hand, and both Sol lands have significant drawbacks from this point, whether it's Wastelanding yourself for your second land drop if you led on City, or having an artifact that pings you every turn in addition to your Ancient Tomb damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamis
tl;dr - Turn 1 Land, Trinisphere is way less likely and way more symmetrical in Legacy than it is in Vintage, even with Vault.
Edit: The same argument basically applies to Lodestone Golem, although Lodestone is harder to play on turn 1 (you need to have all of Sol land, Vault, Lodestone in your opener) but leaves you in a much stronger position than Trinisphere.
That's probably true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undomian
So, what you're saying is that Mana Vault is only absolutely incredible if the deck sees one of eight lands and another card?Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
What? Let's just unban Sol Ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
You'd be giving dark ritual to every color in addition to making any kind of MUD deck pretty oppressive. Consider that MUD plays Grim Monolith which is a super shitastic Mana Vault. I understand it's utility wanes with a chalice on one which is another goal of MUD. Any sol land and mana vault is LSG. Storm deck would absolutely play it, it's a 1-3 mana ratio. You could probably just storm kill with Hurkyls Recall with 4 x Vault, 4 x LED, 4 x Petal.
How about turn 2 planeswalker of your choice with varying levels of soft counter mana to spare. Island, Mana Vault. Untap Island Tezzeret the Seeker. -1 find another Vault. Trinisphere. Miss my land drop next turn and +1. Cast Karn with Daze backup in case opponent has Spirit guide Spirit Guide Daze.
How about Mana Vault go ... untap Sneak Attack?
All of this is more interesting than Derp Delver. Derp Hoof and Derp Show and Tell but it's still broken.
I don't think you even like Legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
It is absolutely broken - but we already allow all sorts of broken things in this format. The power level of the plays you described above isn't out of line with reanimating Griselbrand on turn 1 with Daze/Force backup, or Derp Show and Tell, or RUG opening with Land, Delver into blind flip Delver, Waste you, Stifle your fetch. I'm fine with all of this, and I absolutely want more broken things in the format - I just want to it be more interesting broken things. MUD is one of those decks that's tantalizingly close to being on a par with the DTB decks, and it does things that no other deck in the format does. It's not a me-too Stoneforge/Delver/goodstuff deck, so why not give it a boost. It'll put another powerful deck into the top tier at the cost of...being broken on a similar level to everything else. If it pushes a new Storm deck over the edge, sounds good to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
By all means, start the unbannings with things like Vise and Earthcraft, but is there any point in discussing either of those cards anymore? The holdouts on thinking they're still too good are unlikely to have their minds changed except by having the cards unbanned and seeing that nothing happened.
Mana Vault might fit into Painter's Servant decks. (Or in their sideboard.)Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Imagine, for a moment, a deck that featuresQuote:
...So there are legitimate concerns, and I think Vault would see play, but I'm not convinced that it's still banworthy. It's not an obvious candidate for unbanning like Black Vise or Earthcraft, but it's debatable like Mind Twist, Mental Misstep, or Survival. ...
4 Lion's Eye Diamond
4 Mana Vault
4 Dark Ritual
4 Seething Song
That's getting close to enough to loop Reforge the Soul.
If legacy's powerful things are only supposed to be delver or show and derp, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by HammafistRoob
I think you're missing the point I made above - I understand that unbanned Mana Vault would enable broken things. I don't think an unbanned Mana Vault would enable things that are more broken than things that are currently part of routine Legacy play. And yeah, it might find its way into Painter.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
This is a fair point. I don't think it should be looked at as needing two specific four-ofs in the deck, since these decks are already capable of playing turn one Trinisphere via Grim monolith + Sol Land, or Sol Land and Mox Diamond or whatever. Mana Vault just raises the consistency of this. However, you raise a good point about Land into Vault into Trinisphere being much more symmetrical. You would need to follow up with a turn 2 Sol land to get a double Time Walk from the Trinisphere (and still need something to do with your mana, as well), so maybe it still isn't consistent enough to push such a deck over the edge of what's acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Mana vault is a fairly insane card. I definitely don't think it is safe. Having 7 mana on T2 with Sol lands (more consistently than now), or 5 mana (with color) on T2 is insane. Add in Monolith and you have yourself a fairly consistent insane ramp deck. It would however clash with MUD's Chalice of the Void, but it is probably still worth running. I just don't see this being something safe to un-ban. And like nedleeds said, it may be nutty in storm as well.
I can't stand legacy right now, it's stale as a day old fart.Quote:
Originally Posted by HammafistRoob
Wait, how can Land->Vault->Sphere be considered "meh" when Land->Grim->Sphere is impossible? Power-plays aside, consistency goes through the roof with Vault and there are many times when "unimpressive Sphere" is still incredibly desirable or at the very least better than no Sphere at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamis
Sol Land, Monolith, Sphere is possible now; it happens with the exact same frequency with which MUD with Vault would open Sol Land, Vault, Lodestone in the hypothetical world where Mana Vault is unbanned. The former clearly isn't enough for MUD to be a dominant strategy, or even a consensus tier 1 deck. The latter is very strong, but is likely the deck's strongest opening. I just don't see the deck being dominant when its most broken starts are only as broken as the most broken starts other top decks are capable of, and objectively weaker than cheating Griselbrand into play, with protection, on turn 2, which is currently allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
I think it would power MUD up to a point where it's a legitimate tier 1 deck, but I don't see it overwhelming the format. The deck's actual nut draw probably kills on turn 3 by Forgemastering into Blightsteel and having natural Greaves, but it's unlikely that that would happen with any sort of consistency and would be easily disrupted. It's also not like a mono-brown MUD list would run much in the way of draw or manipulation, so 2-for-1s like Ancient Grudge would be exceptionally good at fighting back. And if you say "but [cards]Thirst for Knowledge/cards]...", remember that the more colored spells a deck runs, the worse all of that colorless mana gets. If an unbanning turns a Dack Fayden/ Welder deck into more of a thing, I say we all win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
And if a card simultaneously improves MUD's position and Storm's position, I think that MUD will keep Storm in check.
Sol Land is what you just said. What was previously talked about is "land". Wasteland, Island, Mountland, Glimmerland, Doesn't-Matter-Land, you can cast Trinisphere with Mana Vault. Something you implied was weak, but in actuality is something that you cannot do with Grim Monolith, and something that provides a huge amount of consistency.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10