Printable View
I agree its busted, but this is a format filled with busted cards. Saying something is busted is akin to saying its playable. Meh. That is far from news to anyone. I mean, there are not many decks in Legacy that are not playing something that is not "Busted".
Just ban brainstrom and print this:
Ideas everywhere - 1
Instant
Draw three cards, then put two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order.
I agree with you on the topic of power creap and card design decisions. I would much rather WotC print high power level cards that can't easily be splashed or you have to make hard deck building decisions to take advantage of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
The problem is that they have shown no interest in doing this at all. The brainstorm hate cards they have printed are no where near the power level they need to be either. Where we are now was four years in the making. I don't want to be stuck with this meta for another four while they try and print solutions which I don't think they will do anyways.
I also think that you underestimate the power of brainstorm in these good blue decks.
They are all cantripcreatures, reducing cantrippower would reduce their power as well. But I agree that other decks like Miracles, or Storm, would take a far harder blow in the banning of brainstorm than they would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Those are two alternatives instead of a ban. But I think neither is realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I feel like Wizards are really on a one-way cantrip, when I see new developed cards like Monastery Monk (it even makes SDT a killcon), or Reality shift, which isn't only good at exiling opposing creatures but also to cheat fatties into play after cantripping them on top of the library. So I suspect the format will adapt even more in the favor of blue shell decks.
Ofcourse, we haven't seen the entire new expansion yet. But I think the gap between blue shell decks and others in terms of power and flexibility has become so big, it would need one hell of a card being printed to restore some variance. This doesn't mean there aren't any decks that can keep up with these blue shell decks. A deck like RG Lands (with cheap tutors like gamble or crop rotation) feels like it can keep up just fine. But these kind of decks remain lonely mountains because of cardprice and cardspecificness, being surrounded by a wide blue ocean of cantrippyness.
Wizards introduced alot of mistakes in the last few years. While they were quick to fix the Mental Misstep disaster, everything from Delver onwards was basically left unchecked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Problem is the road ahead for Wizards is clear - printing powerful blue stuff to keep the color attractive in Standard. This includes things that blue isn't supposed to do from an Eternal point of view (e.g. efficient beaters) or things that are maybe harmless for Standard or Modern, but get broken in half once the Eternal library manipulation comes into play.
I doubt Wizards is going to stop printing dumb blue-related shit anytime soon, with the mistakes accumulating and not going away due to Wizards' non-action. Banning all the dumb shit would be a blessing for the format, but that's never going to happen.
One of the more realistic actions that could help is at least banning the enablers. Like it or not, Brainstorm promotes fair things and dumb shit alike. Being able to get rid of chaff with shuffle effects, protecting key cards from discard and instant speed are also the major offenders that make Brainstorm outperform any other cantrips by a mile.
The irony is that Treasure Cruise is totally unexciting in Standard, but broken in Legacy. It is possible to print awesome blue stuff which doesn't make the cut in Legacy like Consecrated Sphinx or Cryptic Command for standard to keep the colors even in limited, draft and even Standard. Conditional costs are too easily broken in Eternal formats and WotC should knew that after Tombstalker in case of Treasure Cruise.
In a vacuum, Ponder or even Sensei's Top and Sylvan Library (since they are permanents) are much better enablers/manipulators. With Brainstorm you are forced to put back 2 cards and draw miserably on consecutive turns. Ponder's ability to see 4 cards and shuffle your library is unmatched. Ponder into Ponder is 6-8 cards deep, broken much?
No card in Legacy is messured in a vacum. If it was, then Gofy would be worth nothing at all as a 2 drop 0/1.
Tombstalker has delve. Check. But he doesn't fuel your graveyard like Treasure Cruise does. A resolved TC is basically free delve minus 4.
Tombstalker was mediocre at best. Please stop mentioning the card. The newer cards were printed to make an impact in Standard, if these cards ever break eternal formats, that was not their intended purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
This is true. I agree that Tombstalker was totally safe (even tame), but it would've seen more play at 7B rather than 6BB because of the decks that wanted it (BUG variants, mostly). The first Tombstalker also made it much harder to cast the second, unlike Dig and Cruise which usually make the second easier to cast than the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
All that being said - why not just hit Cruise, unban Earthcraft or Survival, and move on? This seems like something that almost everyone here agrees on, which is an unusual occurance. I'd even be happy with ban Cruise and no further changes. We'd actually see how Dig and Swiftspear (along with FRF) impact the format, and getting even two players out of a block is great for Legacy. The fact that they've been overshadowed by how totally busted Cruise is really unfortunate.
You pretty much submarine your credibility when you don't mention channel, or oath.Quote:
Originally Posted by YamiJoey
Edit: I scrolled to the next page.
Whoa now. Tombdaddy is still good. He was used in a T1 list (TA) less than a year ago. He was never "mediocre at best" and I pummeled a few players with him last week at a local. He's not anything near Cruise, but that's like comparing Goyf to Recall. IMO Stalker is still viable contingent upon black being good. Obviously cruise and/or BS being gone would make black much much better again (not that it's not used in 2/5ths of the DTB.)Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Tombstalker had never the Glory to be paired with Probe and got a mayor hit with the release of Jace. But that's not the point; the point is, that Tombstalker was easily castable for BB without much effort and that this fact should have made it clear that Delve is no safe mechanic
Agreed. In fact, I'm probably the only one who runs 2 Tombstalker, in Eva Green.. with 4 Dark Confidants.Quote:
Originally Posted by tescrin
That statement was made to make an impact and to address Lemnear's post :tongue:
There was a 6/7 for 1G in the same set, so it's not like they have a good grip on what 'safe' means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Was Goyf a big player in Rav-TS standard? Didn't play back then, but he was hilariously irrelevant to TS-Lor/Sha-CS Standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meekrab
http://tcdecks.net/tierdecks.php
Top 10 tier decks in December -
1 Non-blue deck (burn)
9/10 decks running BS and Ponder
8/10 decks running BS, Ponder and FoW
7/10 decks running Volcanic Island
This is not a healthy format.
"This system gives each archetype one point for each round of the tournament based on it's asistance and one point for each round won in the top 8."Quote:
Originally Posted by testing32
Now pair this with the counting tournaments: Link here
You see that you have plenty of local events with down to 8 players counting if you browse the performances of NicFit for example through the month. There are 4 NicFit placings (4th of 21, 16 of 44, 5 of 102, 2 of 9) which was enough to make 24th on the ranking.
It's hilarious to define top decks based on absolute numbers played and 9 Player event top 8s
Edit: another nice one: http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=15591
It saw a fair bit of play, I forget how much but I know it saw play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
I don't know what the word "asistance" is doing in that sentence. So I tried replacing it with "inches while erect" and found that it made considerably more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
On another note, I used this TCDeck's points and simply tallied how many of the points in testing32's top 10/ I discovered that 94.2% of those points were earned by decks whose primary color is blue.
I just quoted the page. I asume it was intendend to be written as "attendence"Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Those tiny tournaments with large amounts of variance is the only way that nic fit/non-blue decks even make it on that list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Are you seriously saying that UR Delver, Miracles, Sneak Attack, Omnitell, ANT, Deathblade, Reanimator, and BUG Delver are the same deck because they all run brainstorm? Because I see different decks that happen to have a common card. Might as well say Island is broken. Just because they run BS and Ponder doesn't make them the same deck. That's like saying Maverick, Elves, Jund, and monogreen stompy are the same deck because they share a core of DRS, Green Sun's Zenith, and Dryad Arbor.Quote:
Originally Posted by testing32
Different colors tend to have different cores, the blue core is just larger than others because blue is the best color in eternal formats. A red core is basically x4 bolt. A blue core just happens to be x4 Ponder, x4 Brainstorm, x4 FoW.
People say it's boring to have to face "Fetchland, brainstorm, go" but that's one fucking turn. I think it's interesting to have to deal with someone storming out vs someone grinding out for a miracle vs someone trying to protect a threat. It makes me play differently. It's like saying all rice dishes are the same because it all starts with "turn on stove, rice, go" when jambalaya is different from fried rice which is different from a risotto which is different from red beans N rice.
I'm saying that this is a 48 card format which is stale as hell. UR delver, Patriot, UWr blade and TA are basically the same crap w/slightly different threats. If I wanted to play in a 48 card format I would play Vintage.Quote:
Originally Posted by AznSeal
7/10 decks are: blue garbage + lands + threats
It's the deck building equivalent of paint by numbers. And it didn't always used to be this way. Acting like blue has always been overwhelmingly dominate is disingenuous.
My hypothesis I put forward in this thread has always been that the "success" of blue-based decks looks inflated to me. I agree that Blue is the overal strongest colour in Legacy — but that powerlevel contributes much less to the continous strong performance of blue decks than people think.
All that people in this thread so is post results, metagame%s etc. Don't those people see that that's not the statistics that matter when discussing powerlevel? All they do is measure popularity. If you wanted to actually measure powerlevel, analyze Top8-conversion%s for decks; the way the Hatfields used to do it. I don't know whether results of such an analysis would be different — but at least I don't claim I did know without ever posting the numbers that really matter.
tl;dr: My hypothesis is that some non-blue decks outperform a sizeable amount of the blue decks in the current metagame. Yet by sheer numbers of people playing Blue (because they are always told/believe it to be "the best") blue puts up an absolute higher number of results.
stl;dr: Stop measuring popularity when you want to complain about power level. Measure power level.
/Edit: All of this kind of feels like the inner conflicts of human and elf kingdoms in Lord of the Rings. All the while the real enemy, Miracles, keeps wrecking havoc in the eastern lands and will soon also take over the US meta. It pretty much destroys all of those decks we are talking about here with the exception of what people call "Gold Digger" these days.
You might add up +4 gytaxianprobe (or other cantrip) +2-4TC / DTT for most builds.Quote:
Originally Posted by AznSeal
Giving about 20 cards or half a decks spells as a core blue shell.
And mostly accompanied by temposhell cards as 4delver, 4daze, Xspellpierce, (4pyromancer - not blue ofcourse but an honorable mentioning)
I think a deck running just x4 Ponder, x4 Brainstorm, x4 FoW is a minority as compared to the presence of the total blue shell package.
Definitely true, but it's not about just power level. Players will buy these play these cards because they are powerfull and easily added in multiple decks and therefore being a good investment, cause you'll play another decktype by switching just a few cards. They will also be easy to sell again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
The overabundance of blue at the cost of a varianced environment is the biggest factor for me, not the powerlevel.
If this were true you would see what ever this magic deck is crushing these top 8s but you don't. You see some random non-blue deck show up in about every top 8. It's not consistent on which one it is. Some weeks it's D&T others it's evles another one it's MUD or Maverick. That is variance. You have to look at the big picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
You had that color break down at the last GP. Blue did better the longer the tournament went on. I think that players (such as yourself) outperform that that skews your perception.
You shouldn't ban something for being popular. Like Julian, I, and many others have said many times: other decks can compete with blue decks. Legacy is just expensive so people 1) want decks they can turn into something else and 2) want decks that will be mildly better than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo
I don't think the blue shell is THAT much better than Elves, or DnT, or Maverick. The reason people play the blue shell is because it's a little better and easier to switch decks with.
The fact that really good players can use nonblue decks to win shows that the blue deck in itself is not overpowered, it's the time people take to learn their own decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by testing32
Then the solution should be clear: be the change that you want to see in the meta. Play the decks that beat those decks. Discourage players from playing what you don't like playing against by putting things on your decklist they will not like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo
It shows that good players can still beat bad players, not that they are maximizing their chance to win. Problem comes when you play against a player as good as you running a better (blue) deck or variance gets you because you aren't running BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by AznSeal
Unfortunately that takes allot more work, than just going "OMG look at all the brainstorms, ban it...".Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
If you want to figure out the best decks you really need to do gauntlet testing where you play every matchup the same # of times and not a small #, either with equal skill level players or switching decks half way through. Top X's mean little, though Top X with the metagame %'s would be a somewhat reasonable comparison, but I would want their matchups for the day as well.
The problem is that most of the community has echo chambered itself into one opinion or another, and has long since past the point where they will listen to any actual arguments. This ends up making the Top X #'s worse because they just play more Blue decks as they want to win, which leads to more blue decks in the top X.
I don't see a problem. They run BS because it's the best card. Every format needs a "best card". If you ban BS, people will cry for ponder. If you ban ponder, people will cry for preordain, etc etc etc. Hell, if they ban everything and the best deck becomes goblins, people will cry about banning lackey. Right now, there are many different viable decks that just happen to run Brainstorm. Why do you think all the decks are the same? Brainstorm does not define a deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by testing32
Back when I played competitive pokemon, people complained that Garchomp was on like 1/3 of all teams played. They cried that it over centralized the metagame so it got banned. Guess what? people just replaced it with Salamence and Salamence became super popular. People were saying "dragons are OP" and "ban the 3 drag shells!" so Salamence got banned. Guess what? They got rid of the 2 best dragons in the 3 dragon shell and then other, strong non dragon pokemon started showing up in like every team. Moral of the story? Competitive players will always play what's currently the "best", regardless of how little better it actually is. The format will ALWAYS be dominated by a top few archtypes. Deal with it.
Some people say "but I don't want to have to play an anti meta deck to do good!" well, then don't do good. Your pet deck does not deserve to be #1. Not everything can be number 1. It's like having Light Ball Pikachu as my favorite pokemon, and then complaining I can't do well with it, so people should ban everything until light ball pikachu is tier 1. Then what if the people who like some crappier pokemon as their "pet deck" now complain light ball pikachu is too dominant? The cycle will keep continuing.
To the people saying that if they ban BS that ponder willsimply take its place, I feel like you misunderstand why brainstorm is a good card.
Or lands, which puts down remarkable results in comparison to the limited amount of people playing the deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by AznSeal
Sure there are nonblue strategies that do very well, but it's not only about what you play but also what you play against. Wouldn't you enjoy a more varied, colorfull meta? I am sure most people would.
I would, but the game inherently can not be 100% equal, and the people who played blue only because it was marginally better will just play the next marginally better deck. Would you want to play a metagame where you play elves after elves after elves? Or lands after lands after lands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingo
AznSeal you posted too much bullshit already. If Ponder gets banned, why would people cry for Preordain to be banned as well? Because if nobody agrees with me that Ponder is ban-worthy why would they even consider Preordain. If Brainstorm gets banned, you kill off dozens of innocent blue-based decks, whether you like them or not, they are part of a healthy meta as well as non-blue decks.
A Ponder ban is a compromise to both parties: the blue cantrip cartel is dealt with, nerf Brainstorm/ Preordain/ Gitaxian Probe and delve ability in the process, give less incentive to play blue and gravitate towards SDT and Sylvan library.
In Magic the Gathering, you don't ban cards simply for being the best. This game is more intricate than say Pokemon, I would guess. I honestly never played any card game besides Magic. I suggest you go back to playing Pokemon, if that game is still around (I honestly don't know).
The same perception that lets you ignore the numbers of Brainstorm + Ponder decks which registered compared with the numbers of non-blue decks? Once more: if 70% of all players Register "Brainstorm decks" and 6 of those make it into a top 8, there is no anomaly nor did they overperform.Quote:
Originally Posted by testing32
However a Brainstorm ban would halt that pillaging army in it's tracks as it tried to figure out how exactly to replace the one card manipulation instant in it's arsenal. A daunting task to be sure, since Terminus in the opening hand would be not good and 2x would be a disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
I was giving preordain as an example. You can replace preordain with "card people want to scapegoat in the current DTB"Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Why do we need to compromise? There is nothing wrong with the format. There are plenty of viable decks. People are just bitching about the blue shell because their pet decks can't top 8.
it's like trying to ban Fox/Falco/Sheik/Marth/insert top tier in super smash brothers melee because you main Yoshi. Well guess what, Yoshi is a shit character.