Printable View
Teveshszat post makes sense. The cards that are banned are the most powerful at what they do. While his example is rather weak his concept is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Fow is not more powerful than mana drain . Fows powerlevel is actually not very high. Its a 2-1 against you. Mana drain allows for things you would not normally or should not normally be able to do in early turns. Its easily the best counterspell for its cost.
Snip - Removed Flames.
It's still a silly view. Even in the scenario where you have two absolutely unwanted cards and a shuffle effect- a minority position- you're still increasing your chances of drawing crap + vulnerability to discard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Really the only time it's better to have Brainstorm is hiding a key card on top against T-seize or something but that's not nearly enough to make them comparable. Ancestral Recall is arguably the most powerful banned card, only Black Lotus compares as far as I can tell. Maybe Mana Crypt.
This isn't a very meaningful statement. Nor, depending on interpretation, true. It's basically actually just begging the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by apple713
What does this mean?Quote:
While his example is rather weak his concept is correct.
Is it a premise of this conversation that we ignore actual tournament results?Quote:
Fow is not more powerful than mana drain . Fows powerlevel is actually not very high.
So are Black Lotus and Bazaar.Quote:
Its a 2-1 against you.
So does Goblin Lackey.Quote:
Mana drain allows for things you would not normally or should not normally be able to do in early turns.
So is Decree of Silence.Quote:
Its easily the best counterspell for its cost.
I would argue that Contract from Below is the most powerful banned card, but at this point it's all just semantics.
Regardless of how you view Brainstorm, there is not much on the list that compares to it. If you want to argue that it should be banned or not, you have many other options to take. I do not think there is a card on the list that you can put beside Brainstorm and say "Here, why is this one legal and this one not". Like SnT, Brainstorm will live and die on its own merits. No need to make an list of some of the most broken mistakes ever made to try and prove a point about it.
Sometimes though, I wish they would take those risks again and make more mistakes. Good God I miss good old powerful sets.
It means i can understand how you may not follow his example but the point he is trying to make is correctQuote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Tournament results don't represent powerlevel. While fow is in many top decks, so are blue duals and fetchlands. Should we ban those?
Those are not 2-4-1's . Bazaars downside is actually why its so powerful. Ic you had to sacrifice a land when it came into play i kight be able to agree with you. Pitching a card to force never has a benefit inless you are trying to het out of black vise range.
Goblin lackey is very limited compared to mana drain. If the mana could only be spent on creatures or only on instants, it may not be banned.
You totally misunderstood "for its cost".
Its simply the best counterspell. It counters any spell, and has huge added benefit for only 2 mana.
Bazaar is so much more powerful than anything right now in Legacy, that I seriously don't understand what we're discussing here. The old Type 1.5 missed the whole Dredge archetype with the additional insanity in Grisly, Looting and DReturn that makes the deck explode on turn1 in very ugly fashion.
If the premise to discuss Brainstorm, SnT (and somehow Delver*) is to agree that Bazaar or Oath is on par with nowadays most powerful cards of Legacy, then sorry, there's nothing to discuss. These cards are in their own category. Maybe SnT and BS belongs there too, IDK.
*) I find Delver really oppressive, but maybe it's just necessary evil for tempo decks to exist.
Also, Shahrazad? O_o
It's nice card. For casuals, of course. But I doubt it would bring any good to tournament play.
Hello again,
ok I try it again.
First the Manadrain issue. When you play Manadrain and you counter a spell with it which has a CMC of 2 you get these 2 Mana in the next mainphase.Quote:
So does Goblin Lackey.
What is the benefit here. Assuming you played a land each turn you are now 2 turn ahead were in terms of the Manarescource. This leads to a huge
advantage because the generated Mana is colorless you can support all kind of things.
This card is easly one of the most flexible and powerfull cards because it grant you an significant recource advantage in a limited recource game and
were this is leading should be obivous for all.
While Goblin Lackey is very powerfull in Goblins he canīt do all the things Manadrain could do including dealing with hate cards.
No we are not ignoring them but compare two cards powerlevel. Try to see it this way Force is better in Tempo decksQuote:
Is it a premise of this conversation that we ignore actual tournament results?
were you focus is to finish the game before the opponent can establish any defences. Manadrain is better in decks
were you want a recource advantage to establish you game plan like Oath in Vintage or other
Control Decks.
So Blacklotus and Bazzar are 2-1 cards aigainst you? Do you know how what a Lotus is doing ?Quote:
So are Black Lotus and Bazaar.
A Black Lotus is a card which costs 0 Mana and produces 3 of any Color. Following this and that we a limited Mana recources for the
game it is a 3-0 for you in terms of Mana and depending which card you play with the Mana it will get even better because it generates
such a high recource advantage for zero Mana that it is reidculus. Just to make it clear you trade 1 Hand card against 3 Mana ( each addtional Mana is worth 1 turn in terms
of the Mana recource) and you donīt need to pay Mana. So in the end it is a 3-1 for you if you donīt include the card played next with the Lotus Mana.
Bazzar on the other Hand is a disatvantage against you on the first look but then enable the Dregde deck to cut most of his other lands
and subpotimal cards to stabilize and enable his core strategy with serum powder that the degree of the reduction of variance can even concidered greater
then the degree which brainstorm would provide for this deck.
So both a not cards which are drawbacks for you in any siuation since they are giving you such an large advantage in return were Force of Will
is just a Counter which trades 1-1 and more often 2-1 against you because you have to remove a blue card and is therefore also more conditional
when to use.
I hope it is a little clearer this time if not and you wnat to understand it ask and I try to explain it again in a PM.
Edit:No it would not bring any good to the tournment which is actually the reason why I would leave it on the banned list despite how muchQuote:
Bed Decks Player
Also, Shahrazad? O_o
It's nice card. For casuals, of course. But I doubt it would bring any good to tournament play.
I love the Idea of a card which says give me an the option to prevent my enemy from winning on a constant basis.
Best Regards Teveshszat
I mean the new Conspiracy cards would probably win this contest if they were logistically viable, I'm only including cards in this frame of reference that work in the rules. Contract doesn't do anything in Legacy except get removed from your deck beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Cards aren't banned in a vacuum, if we don't know the baseline it's pretty difficult to figure out... especially when most of the pro-Brainstorm arguments aren't predicated anymore in an idea that Brainstorm is good for the format, but basically just calling people whiners or telling them to man up etc..Quote:
Regardless of how you view Brainstorm, there is not much on the list that compares to it. If you want to argue that it should be banned or not, you have many other options to take. I do not think there is a card on the list that you can put beside Brainstorm and say "Here, why is this one legal and this one not". Like SnT, Brainstorm will live and die on its own merits. No need to make an list of some of the most broken mistakes ever made to try and prove a point about it.
Which is what? Cards that are most powerful at what they do are banned, which is why Lightning Bolt and Counterbalance aren't legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by apple713
This is basically incorrect.Quote:
Tournament results don't represent powerlevel.
Is one card like eight cards?Quote:
While fow is in many top decks, so are blue duals and fetchlands. Should we ban those?
Mana Drain is also reactive. Could use Aether Vial if you prefer though.Quote:
Those are not 2-4-1's . Bazaars downside is actually why its so powerful. Ic you had to sacrifice a land when it came into play i kight be able to agree with you. Pitching a card to force never has a benefit inless you are trying to het out of black vise range.
Goblin lackey is very limited compared to mana drain. If the mana could only be spent on creatures or only on instants, it may not be banned.
It sounds like you actually just misspoke and didn't mean to add the modifier at all.Quote:
You totally misunderstood "for its cost".
Its simply the best counterspell. It counters any spell, and has huge added benefit for only 2 mana.
Anyway, no, Force of Will is objectively the best counter in the game as tournament results verify. You have an enormous burden of proof to overcome to establish otherwise.
Show and Tell into Griselbrand is obviously a much more powerful and resilient combo than hoping your opponent doesn't have any sideboard that affects you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer
It also had Dragon, which had the ability to run as combo-control that Dredge doesn't have. Given the choice I'm pretty sure I'd still prefer the former, although it's a pretty moot point since neither is super healthy.Quote:
The old Type 1.5 missed the whole Dredge archetype with the additional insanity in Grisly, Looting and DReturn that makes the deck explode on turn1 in very ugly fashion.
For frame of reference Dragon was probably the best deck in the history of 1.5/Legacy other than Hulk-Flash, which was basically just a slightly better Dragon. A blistering fast combo deck that can run all the counters/disruption is pretty much the worst case scenario. Which, hey, speaking of Show and Tell.
Given that SnT and Brainstorm are both legal and some people think should continue to be so, it sounds like there is in fact something to discuss!Quote:
If the premise to discuss Brainstorm, SnT (and somehow Delver*) is to agree that Bazaar or Oath is on par with nowadays most powerful cards of Legacy, then sorry, there's nothing to discuss. These cards are in their own category. Maybe SnT and BS belongs there too, IDK.
I am honestly not sure because again I find your posts difficult to parse, is the condescension intentional or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
When you cast Aether Vial you cast a spell which has a cmc of 1 and for this 1 each upkeep you add 1 and then blah blah blahQuote:
First the Manadrain issue. When you play Manadrain and you counter a spell with it which has a CMC of 2 you get these 2 Mana in the next mainphase.
What is the benefit here. Assuming you played a land each turn you are now 2 turn ahead were in terms of the Manarescource. This leads to a huge
advantage because the generated Mana is colorless you can support all kind of things.
This card is easly one of the most flexible and powerfull cards because it grant you an significant recource advantage in a limited recource game and
were this is leading should be obivous for all.
Why the fuck are you wasting my time telling me what cards do, I know what the cards fucking do. If this is an attempt at condescension, again, let me know so I can respond more appropriately, but otherwise this is just some kind of bizarre ego blindness where you think because I don't agree with your knee-jerk defense of the banned list that I must not know what cards do.
Mana Drain is a reasonable upgrade to Counterspell, a complete innocuous card that sees Legacy play but not a ton of it. If you build your deck around the assumption that your opponent will give you juicy Mana Drain targets and you'll always have that opportunity, your deck will suck and be constantly clogged with overcosted shit.
Lots of cards give you a resource advantage and aren't banned so where you're going is the exact opposite of obvious.
Congratulations, you have identified that Mana Drain and Goblin Lackey are different cards. You also noticed that one is reactive, generally a sign of less problems to come, although you somehow came around to interpret that as a strength, a measure by which I guess Teferi's Response is a strictly better Strip Mine.Quote:
While Goblin Lackey is very powerfull in Goblins he canīt do all the things Manadrain could do including dealing with hate cards.
I can try but it will continue to be wrong.Quote:
No we are not ignoring them but compare two cards powerlevel. Try to see it this way Force is better in Tempo decks
were you focus is to finish the game before the opponent can establish any defences. Manadrain is better in decks
were you want a recource advantage to establish you game plan like Oath in Vintage or other
Control Decks.
Like did someone make a gimmick account where the concept was "super condescending Polandball" or something?Quote:
So Blacklotus and Bazzar are 2-1 cards aigainst you? Do you know how what a Lotus is doing ?
Yes, I know what Black Lotus does.
I love the people trying to present the second most successful card in Legacy by a mile as being underwhelming thing. It's really quaint.Quote:
A Black Lotus is a card which costs 0 Mana and produces 3 of any Color. Following this and that we a limited Mana recources for the
game it is a 3-0 for you in terms of Mana and depending which card you play with the Mana it will get even better because it generates
such a high recource advantage for zero Mana that it is reidculus. Just to make it clear you trade 1 Hand card against 3 Mana ( each addtional Mana is worth 1 turn in terms
of the Mana recource) and you donīt need to pay Mana. So in the end it is a 3-1 for you if you donīt include the card played next with the Lotus Mana.
Bazzar on the other Hand is a disatvantage against you on the first look but then enable the Dregde deck to cut most of his other lands
and subpotimal cards to stabilize and enable his core strategy with serum powder that the degree of the reduction of variance can even concidered greater
then the degree which brainstorm would provide for this deck.
So both a not cards which are drawbacks for you in any siuation since they are giving you such an large advantage in return were Force of Will
is just a Counter which trades 1-1 and more often 2-1 against you because you have to remove a blue card and is therefore also more conditional
when to use.
Next time formulate an actual argument and don't assume I don't know what fucking cards do. Also get someone to proofread this, seriously, you're borderline incomprehensible, this is 100% serious; it is difficult to read what you are trying to do except assuming for some fucking reason I don't know what Black Lotus does.Quote:
I hope it is a little clearer this time if not and you wnat to understand it ask and I try to explain it again in a PM.
You know that Shahrazad was one of the shittiest cards in the format and saw basically no play when it was legal, right?Quote:
No it would not bring any good to the tournment which is actually the reason why I would leave it on the banned list despite how much
I love the Idea of a card which says give me an the option to prevent my enemy from winning on a constant basis.
Best Regards Teveshszat
Also as a general note:
If one wants to argue that Oath is better than Show and Tell, which I find dubious, but even if one is so inclined, it shouldn't be controversial to say that Show and Tell with Griselbrand is way better than Oath without Griselbrand, so we're back on the topic of things that are better than cards on the banned list being legal.
Against decks that play creatures, Oath of Druids is going to be better. (One card, and one less mana means it's better even without Griselbrand.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
It has never been legal in Legacy. It has been banned since the format was created for good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
It is a 1 card combo, that looks at creature decks and gives them the finger.
you drop a Oath, protect it for 1 turn and get your fatty the same turn you would have cast show and Tell, while your opponent has not been able to drop something for free to mess with your guy like he would have a chance with Show and Tell.
Oath lets you build a control deck with a combo finisher that takes up very little space in the deck, 4 oaths, 1-2 creatures and maybe 1-2 other cards to go with them and 4 multi color lands that take up land slots, Sneak and Show uses 16 cards for the same effect.
Any creature you pair with Show, you can pair with Oath and make a stronger, more reliable deck due to not needing to dedicate as much as much space to your kill, leaving more room for protection. Also while both have a symetrical effect, Oath's symmetry is allot harder for your opponent to turn against you.
Oath was strong when creatures were allot weaker then they are now, it is still one of the top Vintage archetypes.
If show was as strong or stronger then oath, Show would be seeing heavy Vintage play, or at lest more play then Oath does. Which it does not.
Without an actual list this is impossible to say butQuote:
Originally Posted by rufus
1) That's irrelevant if it's not better against the meta as a whole.
2) I think that pretty clearly doesn't apply to control decks, and against elves and burn I'm pretty sure passing the turn is awful for you. Also, y'know, the existence of Abrupt Decay.
No shit, there I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmcc13
Actually there was a pretty clear consensus the card was garbage until they started printing these stupid insta-win creatures like Emrakul, and certainly Griselbrand. Keep in mind that 1.5 had legal Oath and lots of creature decks and the card was barely on the radar.Quote:
for good reason.
Noooooot really. Especially if those decks run Abrupt Decay which fuck wow does that card negate your strategy harder than all fucks.Quote:
It is a 1 card combo, that looks at creature decks and gives them the finger.
Assuming you only ever want to cast it on turn 2 I guess. And never need to spend time like digging or anything.Quote:
you drop a Oath, protect it for 1 turn and get your fatty the same turn you would have cast show and Tell
Even if we pretend they're not different formats, you're ignoring the part where Griselbrand + SNT is pretty clearly superior to Oath without Griselbrand.Quote:
Any creature you pair with Show, you can pair with Oath and make a stronger, more reliable deck due to not needing to dedicate as much as much space to your kill, leaving more room for protection. Also while both have a symetrical effect, Oath's symmetry is allot harder for your opponent to turn against you.
Oath was strong when creatures were allot weaker then they are now, it is still one of the top Vintage archetypes.
If show was as strong or stronger then oath, Show would be seeing heavy Vintage play, or at lest more play then Oath does. Which it does not.
Also Revoker. There'd be a pretty compelling case for MD Pithing Needles in some decks if Survival were legal, actually.
Hello,
ah thank you IBA for each insult you throw at me I realize a bit more that you have no real argument left and thank makes me happy.
Btw is you insulting behavoir intentional or not?
Just to mention I am not condescensional. If I would you could read things like ok my little Pony Assasin now just let you give
you a letcture in the basics of resource Management and cost effiency combing with Statistics.
But lets see I try to tell you what the cards do because out of your argumentation you not seem to realize what effect they have behoynd
the card it self which is why I explained what the cards really do when played in the right decks and why is is the reason why they are banned. When
you get to this point then you will understand my argumentation and no longer think that it is none at all.
Yes there are a lot of recource generating cards which are not banned because they are not as cost efficient as it need to be to be ban worthy.
Normaly for man it has to cheaper then the Mana it produces to be ban worthy like Mana crypt, Vault, the five colored Moxes and Sol Ring.
Mox Diamond and all variants of it after are not on it despite beeing cheaper because they have other restrictions most of the time costing hand
cards. So what you want is an costeffiecnt Mana recource advantage.
Why is it not obious that alle the card which are not banned are simply not effiecient enough to generate a advantge which is as great as the
advantage of the banned cards?
For Manadrain just replace Counterspell in Miracles with Manadrain an see what happen. top will be better then ever the Snap Caster Mage would be
more powerfull and cheaper Clique becomes cheaper as well Kenaros for 3 instead of 5 Mana only 2 Mana to pay for Jace to me it seems that I donīt need
to build a deck with overcosted stuff but just put this thing in a control shell to generate a huge profit out of this by the way this is the reason why it is
the best fucking counter I know besides Mental Missstep.
And yes reactive is a strength for me when the card is part of a control deck which actually want to be reactive most of the time until you have no threats left.
No Teferis Response is worse then Strip Mine because of the Loam and Crucible Recursion of Mine and because it costs 1 Mana less if you count the missed
landdrop as 1 spent Mana.
For the Force topic I not say it is underwhleming it is one of the best counters we have it is just bad in comparrsion to thing like Bazzar, Lotus or Manadrain because
these cards can do much more then Force of Will.
Lightning BNolt is a very cost efficient card but is not banned because it one of the signature cards of Red and actually not that damaging to the format.Quote:
IBA
Which is what? Cards that are most powerful at what they do are banned, which is why Lightning Bolt and Counterbalance aren't legal?
Counterbalance is not banned because it is situational and there are countermessures aviable which deal with it in different siuations from 90 to 100%
just looking at Aprupt decay and Krosan Grip.
Never said it was played much. But it was redicusly good when played as Sideboard card in a control deck stalling the game as long as it needsQuote:
IBA
You know that Shahrazad was one of the shittiest cards in the format and saw basically no play when it was legal, right?
to prevent the second from finishing and the third from happning.
Which is the reason why it was banned.
soemthing you never do because you just declare all other argumentations which are not underlining your point as null and voidQuote:
IBA
responding to particular arguments and not getting in a snitty self-righteous huff.
and never have to go into a real discussion but switching into the insulting mode.
Best Regards Teveshszat
It is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact. Your English is difficult to read. I think it would be inane to pretend that your posts are extremely clear when they're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
There's no value judgment in that, it just makes communication difficult. It was a serious inquiry. What on Earth is your basis for assuming I need you to explain what Magic cards do?
"The cards are banned because they do what they do" is, in point of fact, no argument at all.Quote:
But lets see I try to tell you what the cards do because out of your argumentation you not seem to realize what effect they have behoynd
the card it self which is why I explained what the cards really do when played in the right decks and why is is the reason why they are banned. When
you get to this point then you will understand my argumentation and no longer think that it is none at all.
Because other cards which are not banned produce a greater advantage than cards that are banned...?Quote:
Yes there are a lot of recource generating cards which are not banned because they are not as cost efficient as it need to be to be ban worthy.
Normaly for man it has to cheaper then the Mana it produces to be ban worthy like Mana crypt, Vault, the five colored Moxes and Sol Ring.
Mox Diamond and all variants of it after are not on it despite beeing cheaper because they have other restrictions most of the time costing hand
cards. So what you want is an costeffiecnt Mana recource advantage.
Why is it not obious that alle the card which are not banned are simply not effiecient enough to generate a advantge which is as great as the
advantage of the banned cards?
I mean you do understand that when we say that cards that are banned are more powerful than cards that are banned, that's exactly what we mean, right? No one is saying, "Ancestral Recall is banned but Opportunity is even more powerful! Why isn't it banned!?!?!?" because everyone is not an idiot and understands how resource management works.
Generally cards from control decks don't end up being banned. Which is why Force is still legal despite being far more prevalent in Vintage, just like it was far more prevalent than Mana Drain in 1.5. It is simply not congruent with observed reality to claim that Mana Drain is better than Force, and no amount of arguing that it's better than Counterspell- which no one disputed- will change that.Quote:
For Manadrain just replace Counterspell in Miracles with Manadrain an see what happen. top will be better then ever the Snap Caster Mage would be
more powerfull and cheaper Clique becomes cheaper as well Kenaros for 3 instead of 5 Mana only 2 Mana to pay for Jace to me it seems that I donīt need
to build a deck with overcosted stuff but just put this thing in a control shell to generate a huge profit out of this by the way this is the reason why it is
the best fucking counter I know besides Mental Missstep.
And yes reactive is a strength for me when the card is part of a control deck which actually want to be reactive most of the time until you have no threats left.
If actual results aren't enough for you, and clearly they're not, there's always the reality that the tempo advantage gained by Mana Drain is limited and conditional and requires first committing to keeping mana open, whereas the tempo gained by a free counter is applicable at any time, including when an opponent tries to resolve key spells on turn 1 and 2.
Ah, so if it cost one mana Teferi's Response would be better than Strip Mine?Quote:
No Teferis Response is worse then Strip Mine because of the Loam and Crucible Recursion of Mine and because it costs 1 Mana less if you count the missed
landdrop as 1 spent Mana.
So what you're saying is that power level is measured in a broader context and not simply dependent upon a determination that it's the "best at what it does at the mana cost"? Weeeeeeeeird.Quote:
Lightning BNolt is a very cost efficient card but is not banned because it one of the signature cards of Red and actually not that damaging to the format.
Counterbalance is not banned because it is situational and there are countermessures aviable which deal with it in different siuations from 90 to 100%
just looking at Aprupt decay and Krosan Grip.
Yeah, this straight up isn't true, no one ran it in their sideboard and it was never good. It was banned because it created logistical stalling problems. But these didn't help the Shahrazad player so much as they punished the opponent.Quote:
Never said it was played much. But it was redicusly good when played as Sideboard card in a control deck stalling the game as long as it needs
to prevent the second from finishing and the third from happning.
Which is the reason why it was banned.
To say that your posts are borderline unreadable is describing a real and persistent problem in communicating with you. To say that an argument is bad for X or Y reasons is engaging in the argument. I actually don't rely on direct attacks and insults because I am not a child and I actually don't really care enough about most of the posters involved to bother with determining what their personal flaws are. Saying, "You never respond to arguments you just troll and flame people" is however an actual personal attack. It's one I'm bored fucking stiffless of but still a personal attack. So you're the one actually leaning on that whole ad hominem thing, not me.Quote:
soemthing you never do because you just declare all other argumentations which are not underlining your point as null and void
and never have to go into a real discussion but switching into the insulting mode.
I just want to point out that this is only true because control decks have historically barely hung on in most formats. It's the nature of magic that proactive strategies are better than reactive.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
If it was otherwise, you can bet that Stasis would be banned.
There's a single non-Brainstorm deck left in the DTB and it's Elves. Come on guys we can do 100% Brainstorm decks if we try hard enough. :smile:
This is accurate. The problem with Legacy at the moment is that blue sits perfectly across the meta with strong aggro, aggro-control and control options all available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meekrab
RUG Delver is as aggro as you can get. It is in your face from the second turn on and often from the first with a Delver play. It achieves that same kind of consistency that traditional aggro decks have had by using blue card selection instead of the threat density that aggro normally has. This allows it to also play effective counters to forestall early disaster and to protect it's prized assets in play.
BUG Delver is fast aggro-control. It has discard and counters and the tools to find what it needs in a hurry. It also uses blue card selection to make up for a low threat density. It's not as fast as RUG in most cases (Delver being the obvious exception) but it makes up for the slightly slower kill plan by having more effective disruption in the discard elements.
Shardless BUG is flexible mid-range control. It can go a lot of different ways and is very adaptable to the list across the table from it. The blue card selection is key both in terms of finding it's solutions and also in setting the top of the library for Shardless Agent.
Miracles is a traditional control list. It looks to fend off the opponent until an inflection point arrives and then to win quickly from there when the match has turned positive for it. The Miracles player watches the game flow carefully and as soon as he detects a point at which the opponent is weak he strikes.
So blue lives in all the spaces in the meta except linear combo at this point and dominates all of them.
Hello,
I am not talking about the English critic but all the other insults which you written I would collect them but you are lucky because you postsQuote:
IBA
It is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact. Your English is difficult to read. I think it would be inane to pretend that your posts are extremely clear when they're not.
got deleted before I could do this so other than the fact that they are deleted there is no proof for you insults.
Because you come to very interesting Ideas about how the game and the cards are working and out of thisQuote:
IBA
What on Earth is your basis for assuming I need you to explain what Magic cards do?
draw conclusions about their strength which are not really accurate.
Understanding what these cards are doing is important when you are doing comparisons to non-banned
Cards and evaluating the power level correctly is important to see why they are banned and lackey, vial and Brainstorm are not
And which reasons they have for not doing so.
No but you tried to say that some cards (excluding Brainstorm because he is very powerful) which are not banned are better than most of the cards on the banned list and therefore some of them maybe should be unbanned because their power level is lower than that of actual cards.Quote:
IBA
No one is saying, "Ancestral Recall is banned but Opportunity is even more powerful! Why isn't it banned!?!?!?
But if this argumentation I am tempted to try to explain the mechanics of these cards again because you seem to not understanding them
Correctly- But maybe it would be better to test it and prox the cards and then play with them to show how powerful these cards are.
Yes a 1 Mana Response as instant which destroys any land and not only a wasteland or stripmine or any other land destroyerQuote:
IBA
Ah, so if it cost one mana Teferi's Response would be better than Strip Mine?
and draws you 2 cards would be better then strip mine.
If it only destroys things like Wasteland, no it would not be better because Stripmine is destroying all kind of lands
and is therefore more flexible.
What is weird at including the actual game when evaluating power levels. A card can be as powerful as it wants in theory but in the game you maybe come to the conclusion this card is not powerful enough to deserve to play it because you canīt use it to the full potential while you can use other cards which are weaker in theory better in this situations. For Counterbalance this would be the case when people switching back to permanents and spell above CMC 3 or if most of the decks include 4 abrupt decays and or 3 krosan Grips. I saw this with grips in Europe as CB decreased in popularity because most ofQuote:
IBA
So what you're saying is that power level is measured in a broader context and not simply dependent upon a determination that it's the "best at what it does at the mana cost"? Weeeeeeeeird.
the decks side boarded grip and they felt not confident enough to counter it with the trigger of CB.
Even now Miracle players are boarding out CB in certain matchups like DNT just because they evaluate correctly that CB is a bad card
against the combination of vial and cavern of souls.
You mean no one you know ran it in his sideboard. I actually saw decks in Europe ran this card and which it did to the opponent.Quote:
IBA
Yeah, this straight up isn't true, no one ran it in their sideboard and it was never good. It was banned because it created logistical stalling problems. But these didn't help the Shahrazad player so much as they punished the opponent.
So here you just have a little knowledge deficit. I mean stalling the opponent is exactly what you want to do when you last game
took 40 minutes and you just want to hold until they announce overtime. This is what it helps me to win the round in the
tournament.
What is surprising me is that my International Management professors andQuote:
IBA
To say that your posts are borderline unreadable is describing a real and persistent problem in communicating with you.
my native English speaking boss never had the same opinion as you because if they had I would lost
my job by now or failed my studies.
Best regards Teveshszat
Even in combo. Show and Tell decks and High Tide.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggroControl
I was thinking blue-based linear combo and while you are correct that High Tide is exactly that it hasn't been a good list for a long time. It's the kind of list that if you are bad against combo you will absolutely suck against it. Aluren is the list I would say is strong against the meta right now but it is almost never played. 4 Imperial recruiters is too much investment for most people to play one list.Quote:
Originally Posted by menace13
Hello,
For the other things yes blue has to many options right now but I think the only problem are the Aggro options is
has. Blue is one of the traditional control and combo colors.
So in my opinion what is hurting us right now are Delver and TNN because they are blue aggressive creatures
which evasion which is something blue should not have but some other color like green or red.
Best Regards Teveshszat
Hmm... I wouldn't call ANT or TES blue per say... but some of the blue tools are easily present in those decks. Those aren't at the top of the table at the moment; however, they seldom fall but so far. And in the pure sense of the matter, High Tide (Solidarity) is a linear combo deck. Same could be said about Merfolk pending on the direction of the wind and day of the week.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggroControl
Cheers,
I'm out of my element, where's a large rock?
menace13- he is quick, and wise
As a hater of blue, this is a fantastic place to broker some sort of peace with an identified blue fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
It is true that there is an abomination of aggressive blue creatures that pervert the scales. However, the thought process behind banning brainstorm is to take one card, instead of many. Of the aggressive creatures that should be removed from Blue, to the appropriate magical-fantasy-land color they should've been: Snappy- Red, V. Clique- Black, TNN- White, Delver- Red. If the blue community can ditch those 4 cards, I'm totally fine with leaving brainstorm in the game. Allowing Blue to have aggressive better creatures, with no need of splashing is just whoomp whoomp :(.
Spotting DRS, Bob, SFM, Goyf, and Goblin Lackey for lulz, what other creatures make the best 4 early drops in the other colors? Second tier Grim, MoM...??? Yeah, [music]sad trombone[/music].
So, ban 1 card, or ban several cards?
You may also choose to ban both BS and the most annoying blue suckers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
Frankly, I'm not even sure if Delver is that bad. If not for the AWFUL idea of transform cards - inb4 "why u no love new ideaz?"; well, I love new ideas, but not the ugly ones that interfere with the very basics of a card game -, and of course, if not for the fact that it's blue, maybe I'd somehow loved the guy. I realized that tempo has horrible times right now (at least clear RUG, maybe the B splash with DRS, Decay and/or Bob has an easier game), because it's only so so fast enough to fight the combo, it cannot fight forever against control, esp. ever since its threats cannot be reliably protected due to AD's uncounterability. Yes, yes, yes, I know all the jargon about "you simply continue pressure with another threat" or "AD makes no difference, removal always existed" or my favourite "if you spent resources protecting Goyf, then you know nothing about playing RUG". Simply put: no, this is wrong, from time to time it was necessary (and simultaneously pretty easy) to save Goyf from StP/Submerge/Demise/w-e and tap it once again to finish the game; Decay leaves no such a choice.
So yeah, if tempo's place in meta is only allowed thanks to Delver, then I'm willing to play with the card. Without tempo, one quite important aspect/portion of game/meta would be lost, and non-combo decks would gravitate (maybe only a bit, but yeah) towards the midrange/control part of the spectrum with emphasis on Big Spells (TM). I'm not interested in an arms race (and games of who's got a bigger Craw Wurm). But maybe it's just a trouble of RUG having no other option than Delver (Jace's Phantasm is unplayable and TNN/Clique is slow), while all other tempo decks would simply use 4 DRS and be done with the thing.
TNN, being a similarly ugly card like Delver (although in a different way) I wouldn't miss at all. But maybe there's some reason why it should remain legal, maybe some X-Blade enthusiasts sees this differently and maybe I'd be convinced (if only there weren't like three or four reasons why I'll never touch the card).
You can make a pretty good argument that four permanents broke blue over a period of time. Those would be Tarmogoyf, which gave blue an early wall against aggro who was also a big beater that could be cast without tapping out in the mid-game. Then they printed Jace, the Mind Sculptor who was both a draw engine and a win-con and who protected himself from a single beater who might take him down. That you could draw cards with him or clear a big beater in the turn you dropped him made him an overpowered control piece. Then they printed Delver of Secrets in Innistrad, which made the already aggressive blue tempo lists overpowered. Finally they printed True-Name Nemesis in Commander 2013. A card so powerful they wouldn't let it touch Standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
In truth I don't see three of those cards as overpowered in a vacuum. Tarmogoyf, Delver and TNN are all manageable with the right preparation and practice. They're manageable in multiple colors and by solutions that people already use for other dangerous creatures. Once you give them the consistency of a blue shell and protection from spells, which are the key blue elements in play, they become overpowered. Jace is just overpowered though. That's a card that never should have been printed. When he is resolved successfully the person resolving him probably wins 80% of the games. This is because they are a control deck and they've gotten into the mid-game and Jace puts that kind of list over the top when he lands.
My take on the overall situation is that 3 of the cards above have the significant flaw that they are a creature and the 4th would be weakened somewhat by a loss of consistency in drawing him out. That's the argument for get rid of Brainstorm. Doing so would weaken blue as a whole and make all the power cards in the archetype less powerful.
Delver didn't create any new archetypes really, it just got slotted right into the existing Thresh lists. I guess it let the tempo decks cut green to get ridiculously undercosted creatures?
Delver made RUG Tempo more proactive on turn 1, particularly on the play. Dropping a Delver turn 1 is something most players will do when playing in the blind on their opponent. There was no play in RUG Tempo that was almost an auto-drop on turn 1 on the play before Delver. People might keep a 50/50 hand with Ponder and tap out to fix it but they might not also depending on if Stifle was available.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Assuming he lives Delver is like 4-6 more damage than you would ever see out of Nimble Mongoose, even if you dropped mongoose turn 1 which most players were loath to do. So I would argue that Delver turned RUG Tempo into RUG Turbo-Tempo and in the process created a new archetype - hyper aggro-control.
Not exactly, it helped them to gain back the extraordinary tempo, something they were a bit lacking once metagame shifted or people learned how to play against tempo or maybe simply becasue of DRS and Decay's introduction that made it possible to slow down or stop the biggest threat that tempo could offer, Tarmogoyf.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Goyf wasn't cut and it's still played, unless we're discussing U(W)R Delver or anything similar, a decks that emerged only thanks to Delver. Several UGxx decks don't play Goyf or rather use less than a set of them, yet this is often a meta call, question of playstyle, maybe even availability issue, but definitely not a norm. At least speaking of decks with less then three Goyfs. 3-4 are norm in any given UG Internet Tempo, while 2 (often accompanied by some number of TNNs) are also used sometimes. Anything else is really unlikely, except for some experiments with 3x set of DRS, Delver, TNN which offers great deal of flexibility, speed and pro:you.
It's not like Thresh played only eight dudes prior to Delver, in fact it was common to see at least Clique (and sometimes there was Trygon Predator thrown in when necessary: CB/Top or MUD infested lgs), but Delver helped to increase the pressure which seems to be necessary today, as lots of decks are able to stabilize (CB/Top, CotV) or even take over the game on turn2 (SFM->Skull, Moon), not even speaking about outright combo wins due to the infamous "tap for Goyf, lose now" situations that were not exactly avoidable, namely when playing against unknown opponent.
Also, it flies, so it was quite often the only way how to get over the immense wall of (immense) blockers that e.g. Maverick or Folks could accumulate.
edit:
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggroControl
My god, a single post about the relative power levels of cards and people go fucking berserk. It's also clear to me that many don't actually play Vintage or the cards mentioned in the post at all because many cards are being oversold in terms of their power. Yes, Mana Drain is a good card. Yes, it gives you mana but you need to keep UU open and you need to actually have something to spend that mana on for it to be better than Counterspell. If you're just passing the turn back then you basically just cast Counterspell. It CAN be broken but it's situational.
Yes, Oath is a good deck in Vintage. It places horrible constraints in deck construction and the reason it's really good in Vintage is because it can switch to a Vault/Key plan if Oathing is not possible (control oath anyway). That would be impossible in legacy. Oath also tends to have horribly awkward draws and are plagued by not being able to run many of the traditional draw engines.
Yes, Bazaar is a broken card in dredge. Any deck that currently exists can beat it with enough SB hate. Bazaar-based dredge decks typically win g1 and struggle to win g2/g3 if their opponents pack enough hate.
IBA is correct in saying that many cards on the banned list are much weaker than cards currently legal. No, I am not saying I would want these cards to get banned but let's not kid ourselves. Personally I'd rather see aggressive unbans, not just unbans once WOTC figures out that the card will do nothing once unbanned, but maybe that's just me.
EDIT : As for Delver, funny thing is I still see people complaining that Black Vise is too powerful as a 1-drop in legacy. What is Delver then?
The format absolutely needs turn 3/4 Pierce-proof Jaces or turn 3/4 hardcast Batterskulls. /sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by HrishiQQ
How can you deny that Brainstorm + Ponder + Oath would just totally own every fucking creature strategy in the format.
Deck Constraints compared to regular creature decks? In legacy Vault isn't possible but that can be anything else that is legal in the format. Excluding small creatures obviously. Legacy has Show and Tell to make it a hybrid. Or Reanimator with Oath. Or Tin-Fins with Oath. No it wouldn't look like Vintage Oath. Neither does Storm look like Vintage Storm. Statements not really pertinent to this format.Quote:
Originally Posted by HrishiQQ
It's not like it auto loses. The decision comes down to players giving up half their sideboard space every time they sleeve up.Quote:
Originally Posted by HrishiQQ
To expound further on some dynamics of why Bazaar can win despite living in a format with tons of hate and the most powerful cards in the game. Not including faster to win decks like Storm. Having a perfect mix of a clock/win condition, the graveyard hate, and a way to stop them from either removing the hate card or having another one. Is less likely than Bazaar + removal for the artifact or enchantment or just Bazaar into the removal. Even more so when hyper mulligans to Leyline is about the only way to not lose on turn 2 for a majority of decks. Other decks being more prone to mull into nothing relevant. Or a weak combination of hate card and stone nothing, than the deck playing 4 Serum Powders and lots of redundant pieces. This is why decks must often slot 6 or more cards to combat the ridiculous engine that Bazaar is. With on average 40% or more of your sideboard space dedicated to not lose to just one deck that you may or may not even be paired up against. Is there anything now that forces you to do so in Legacy? It can occupy up to 5% of placing lists despite being the most targeted deck in most sideboards. It's the boogeyman of a format filled with boogeymen.
One thing I find interesting is that people (at least Tevesh and Dice_box?) argue that this
A: "Some cards that are legal are stronger than stuff that's banned ATM. See, here is a list"
automatically also means this:
C:"We should unban some of the stuff on the banned list".
I don't see how that follows even remotely. You're including an additional premise in IBA's statements:
Premise 1: "Some cards that are legal are stronger than stuff that's banned ATM. See, here is a list"
Sneaky Premise 2: "Those strong cards that are currently legal are just fine".
Necessary conclusion: "Some cards on the banned list should be unbanned because they would be fine."
What IBA has been trying to get at in my view:
Premise 1: "Some cards that are legal are stronger than stuff that's banned ATM. See, here is a list"
Premise 2: "A card being banned means it's too strong."
Necessary conclusion: "Maybe the DCI should consider giving some cards the hammer."
No, what I am saying is I do not believe that there are legal cards more powerful than the ones I stated in my rebuttal. As for the others, the ones I made no comment on, those in my view are somewhere between safe and so safe they would do nothing to the format.
You did say that, true. But you also said that if we accept IBA's claim that there are stronger cards unbanned than cards that are banned it means he's arguing for unbans as well which does not hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
A comment I stand by. If your going to say that one card is legal and this other card that is not is less powerful, then you must understand that you are claiming that by that metric you see the less powerful one as safer. If you want to say "Brand is stronger than Bargain" Then you have to understand that by extension you are also saying you think Bargain can be delt with in the format. If one is both legal and is not making the format cave in and the other is not legal is is worse than the legal card.... You can't have it both ways.
You ban say Brand is busted in half too, and while I agree, we are talking about a format where everything is busted as fuck. "X is busted" is not really a strong statment in Legacy. Nothing in Legacy is playing Fair. Even the fair decks have some plan to do something unfair.
I couldnt agree more that the power level of Show and Tell + Griselbrand is way too high compared to banned cards.
I enjoyed most the good old type 1.5 and I think that could be the way to go for legacy. Unban couple of cards at time and then some more and then some more.. Start with hermit druid, mana drain and survival. :)
Unban
Black vise
Fastbond
Goblin recruiter
Bazaar of baghdad
Frantic search
Gush
Hermit druid
Mana drain
Mana vault
Mental misstep
Oath of druids
Skullclamp
Survival of the fittest
Ban
Show and tell
Lion's eye diamond
Griselbrand
True-name nemesis (not the powerlevel, but it is clearly multiplayer card)
Some stupid storm cards
Black Vise is quite an annoying and unreliable card that may or may not win you the game in a boring fashion. Delver no. 5-8, idk if we need more of them, especially if it cannot be interacted with by StP, Bolt and Terminus.Quote:
Originally Posted by raudo
Sets of Fastbond and Gush in one format would definitely lead to a plethora of new decks I'm not sure about we wanna see.
Goblin Recruiter is interesting card with original effect, sadly quite a Shahrazad-like one. Maybe it can come of the list, it's not like Goblins/NLBelcher are Tier 0,75 anymore and they can be powered up.
Bazaar... simply no. I don't care of any sophisticated reasons why it's secretly bad, we know it isn't, especially in a format with 4 LEDs.
Frantic Search. Yes, please. Hight Tide ain't a killing machine, FS is quite interesting card and I got box of them.
Sets of Gush and Fastbond in one format would definitely lead to a plethora of new decks I'm not sure about we wanna see.
Hermit Druid is stupid card, I don't think we need it.
Mana Drain. I'm not sure if a better Counterspell is that strong. Two words, though: price tag.
Mana Vault is a "one-shot" colorless Dark Ritual; our fromat is fast enough right now and I don't think we need more fast Trinispheres, Lodestone Golems and JTMS on turn2 to make it super fast/annoying.
Mental Misstep, please no.
Oath of Druids. I can't evaluate the card in Legacy meta, but it would definitely shake the world of Legacy. I guess traditional aggro would be extinct.
Skullclamp is interesting option for aggro decks, sadly it makes nothing about the most usual one-mana Wrath played and I fear it would simply fuel Your Next Combo. Is it good? Idk.
Show and Tell should be banned ihmo, there are reasons why (it's a threat and cheat in one card, super-duper stupid thing, it'll get only worse in time). I'm pretty infromed about it's price and I loathe the idea of annoying hundreds of Legacy players; it already happened with SotF.
LED. No, it makes the whole Storm archetype possible, fuels Dredge and before the format turned to a Delver's tempo discotheque it's now, there were interesting lists like Flying Fuckers that nobody play anymore.
Grisly. Yep, ban this sucker.
TNN. It'll be a strange precedent and frankly I don't see it happening as TNN isn't dominating enogh, and it sells their packs.
Some stupid storm cards. Joking much?
I hope they'll unban SotF. It's once again an interesting card with original effect and as an engine+tutor, it may fuel powerful and entertaining decks. Also, it's the only card that may force Slosh to sleeve up creatures, and I want this see happening.
I played Oath in a Vintage tournament yesterday. You think Show and Tell -->Griselbrand is bad? Just wait until you can Oath him up.