All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

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.

---

This is beside the point though. That 70% of players feel required to register a blue shell list is the point. That said blue shell lists sh*t all over 90% of the non-blue alternatives is the point.

We're so deep into a majority-blue shell meta at this point that we can't even see the game for what it once was. It's a shrunken shriveled mess compared to the grandeur that 30k cards should make possible. Yes, only a small percentage of those should be playable in a truly competitive environment but there are about 8 cards out there (Brainstorm, Force of Will, Ponder, Delver of Secrets, Daze, Terminus, Counterbalance and True-Name Nemesis) that make most of the small percentage irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

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.

---

That's why I mentioned a thousand times that players would stop playing conditional cards like Entreat/Terminus/Daze and move to options less conditional in Uxx like SFM/TNN.

Stop making a point based on "people are idiots, ergo..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

That's why I mentioned a thousand times that players would stop playing conditional cards like Entreat/Terminus/Daze and move to options less conditional in Uxx like SFM/TNN.

Stop making a point based on "people are idiots, ergo..."

---

There's no way people would stop playing Daze. The other 2 are possible.

What WotC should do is break the blue shell irrevocably. They should ban Brainstorm, Ponder, Sensei's Divining Top and Delver of Secrets and rely on that deep card pool to provide playable alternatives. It certainly would and the blue shell would become 45% of the meta instead of 70%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

There's no way people would stop playing Daze. The other 2 are possible.

What WotC should do is break the blue shell irrevocably. They should ban Brainstorm, Ponder, Sensei's Divining Top and Delver of Secrets and rely on that deep card pool to provide playable alternatives. It certainly would and the blue shell would become 45% of the meta instead of 70%.

---

No, because if they did that, the format would be like 70% elves and 30% decks metagamed to beat elves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AznSeal

No, because if they did that, the format would be like 70% elves and 30% decks metagamed to beat elves.

---

It wouldn't though. People would still play the blue shell for consistency, using Preordain and another 1cc cantrip of choice to provide that. They'd still play Force of Will and Daze. They'd still play Lightning Bolt and Swords to Plowshares and Chain Lightning and Forked Bolt and Disfigure and Dismember and other easily used targeted removal. They'd go back to playing things like Engineered Plague and Perish in the sideboard. They'd use things like Pyroclasm and Marsh Casualties as sweeper options.

Lists that are completely moribund now, like White Stax and other Mono-White Control would become playable again. You might even see a Boros sighting now and then. Bw Suicide would get played, and it would have a *very* good matchup against Elves.

The point is that Elves thrives in a blue shell meta because the blue shell suppresses almost everything that preys upon it. The price Elves pays for that is a poor matchup against Miracles. Weaken the blue shell and concepts that are hostile to Elves will become more playable. The meta will shift towards a more varied playing field with less predictability for all involved.

Obviously if you could have that predictability without having it associated with a very limited pool of cards that would be great. That's not the reality we live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

You had that color break down at the last GP. Blue did better the longer the tournament went on.

---

Where did we have that? All I could find is http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...gpnj14/r14meta, which has nothing to do with what I am saying.

If you have data like the one I'm asking for, pleasre share it with us because if somehow actually had access to something like that, it would be HUGE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

Where did we have that? All I could find is http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...gpnj14/r14meta, which has nothing to do with what I am saying.

If you have data like the one I'm asking for, pleasre share it with us because if somehow actually had access to something like that, it would be HUGE!

---

There is a day 2 meta, then a round 14 and then the top 16. I have searched everywhere for data like we used to get from the Hatfields but I haven't found anything. That type of data would give a clearer picture of what is going on.

So your statement doesn't hold up. I just wanted to conclude that because you threw out it there as if we actually had the data at hand and people will read it and be like "Yeah, see? Blue is so op" despite not having the data we really need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

So your statement doesn't hold up. I just wanted to conclude that because you threw out it there as if we actually had the data at hand and people will read it and be like "Yeah, see? Blue is so op" despite not having the data we really need.

---

As long as we are clarifying things, are you suggesting that the GP:NJ registered decklists were 87% blue like the top 16 turned out to be?

The format is fine. Nobody just has the balls to try something new or create something interesting.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...gpnj14/d1undef

Day 1 Undefeateds above. 11 blue shell, 5 non-blue shell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

As long as we are clarifying things, are you suggesting that the GP:NJ registered decklists were 87% blue like the top 16 turned out to be?

---

Clarification after being called out to post blatant bullshit? Yeeeeeeah *slowclap*

Your question ignores the playskill of each participant and their deckchoice, which is something to have in mind. On a second instance, how much percentual difference between the Top16 (+ people who miss these based on tiebreakers) and the metagame distribution is acceptable for you to qualify as not over-/underperforming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...gpnj14/d1undef

Day 1 Undefeateds above. 11 blue shell, 5 non-blue shell.

---

So 16 undefeated decks? 11/16=68,75% which is mysteriously the same percentage Brainstorm decks are played in general according to MTGtop8! No under-/overperforming to be seen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Clarification after being called out to post blatant bullshit? Yeeeeeeah *slowclap*

Your question ignores the playskill of each participant and their deckchoice, which is something to have in mind. On a second instance, how much percentual difference between the Top16 (+ people who miss these based on tiebreakers) and the metagame distribution is acceptable for you to qualify as not over-/underperforming?

---

Please point me to the "Bullshit" post. So far I am not seeing one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Clarification after being called out to post blatant bullshit? Yeeeeeeah *slowclap*

Your question ignores the playskill of each participant and their deckchoice, which is something to have in mind. On a second instance, how much percentual difference between the Top16 (+ people who miss these based on tiebreakers) and the metagame distribution is acceptable for you to qualify as not over-/underperforming?



So 16 undefeated decks? 11/16=68,75% which is mysteriously the same percentage Brainstorm decks are played in general according to MTGtop8! No under-/overperforming to be seen

---

Honestly, I'm really tempted to see if I can't ask Wizards for all ~4,000 decklists so that we can do a full metagame analysis. OR something of the sort. Because everyone's quibbling over hypotheticals when the data is available, if Wizards are willing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Please point me to the "Bullshit" post. So far I am not seeing one.

---

It is right here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

You had that color break down at the last GP. Blue did better the longer the tournament went on.

---

You can't state this being a fact if you don't have a day 1 metagame breakdown aka not having the base data to see a development. I don't even know IF there's even a trend between Day 2 and Top 16 to be seen

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkenslight

Honestly, I'm really tempted to see if I can't ask Wizards for all ~4,000 decklists so that we can do a full metagame analysis. OR something of the sort. Because everyone's quibbling over hypotheticals when the data is available, if Wizards are willing.

---

Dunno if it's possible, but that would possibly stop people arguing based on data they don't have at hand. The data we as players actually have aka Top 8/16/32 lists say nothing about the metagame as a whole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It is right here:



You can't state this being a fact if you don't have a day 1 metagame breakdown aka not having the base data to see a development. I don't even know IF there's even a trend between Day 2 and Top 16 to be seen

Edit:


Dunno if it's possible, but that would possibly stop people arguing based on data they don't have at hand. The data we as players actually have aka Top 8/16/32 lists say nothing about the metagame as a whole

---

He thinks the fact that 70% of people are running blue in the first place is the problem, not the fact that blue is strong lol................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AznSeal

He thinks the fact that 70% of people are running blue in the first place is the problem, not the fact that blue is strong lol................

---

Right. And that is only because boys favorite color is blue. Like, when baby showers are thrown. It is always blue for boys and pink for girls. There is no relation to how powerful those blue cards are. It's just that theyre all males.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

/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.

---

An aside, since I agree with your general point - I don't think Miracles is the real enemy. It's actually got some pretty obvious foils like 12Post, MUD, and Enchantress and plenty of regular old unfavorable matchups like Team America and Shardless BUG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Keller

The format is fine. Nobody just has the balls to try something new or create something interesting.

---

This I'm not so sure on. I think without Cruise we've got a ton of space in which to innovate, and that Khans just adds to the space (and it looks like Fate Reforged will too), but Cruise actually makes it much harder to come up with a new tier-1 deck because at least two of the current top decks (UWr Aggro-Control with or without Stoneforge Mystic and/or Delver and URb Aggro-Control) generally win through card advantage alone, and that's one hell of an axis to fight on if you're brewing without going the Cruise route yourself.

Something like Dredge that generates tons of virtual CA is an option, but it faces a lot of easily run and incredibly powerful hate; Enchantress beats the slow aggro-control lists pretty handily while losing horribly to the exact combo lists they encourage the rest of the meta to be playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkenslight

Honestly, I'm really tempted to see if I can't ask Wizards for all ~4,000 decklists so that we can do a full metagame analysis. OR something of the sort. Because everyone's quibbling over hypotheticals when the data is available, if Wizards are willing.

---

This would be great. I don't know why they wouldn't release the decklists if you asked for them (unless they aren't digitized). It would be even better if they gave you the match results for each player as well so you can actually see what's beating what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace13

Right. And that is only because boys favorite color is blue. Like, when baby showers are thrown. It is always blue for boys and pink for girls. There is no relation to how powerful those blue cards are. It's just that theyre all males.

---

Yah it's a dumb criteria. I think the format is fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Keller

The format is fine. Nobody just has the balls to try something new or create something interesting.

---

A Legend has spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

A Ponder ban is a compromise to both parties: the blue cantrip cartel is dealt with

---

So ban the worse card, that's played in lower numbers because? again? Pillar something? Would quit? Modern?

Edit: forgot about Why not just ban Island?

I think argueing in favor of a Brainstorm ban has the same level stupidity as denying the fact that blue is the most powerful color in legacy. But that's not the fault of Legacy, that is just what comes out when you give the best mechanics in a card game to one color. Card selection, card draw and the best form of disruption in one color is just very stupid design.

I don't see how banning Brainstorm would do anything good to the format. Even in Modern combo decks are very consistent and they don't have Brainstorm, Ponder, Preordain, Lotus Petal, Dark Ritual, Show&Tell etc.

If they ban Brainstorm, and non blue decks increase a lot in numbers, i don't care because i will now play combo decks and enjoy so many free wins. Combo decks don't lose a lot when Brainstorm gets banned, because we just have to look at Modern when you could play Storm with Rite of Flame, Preordain etc.

It was a very consistent Turn 2, Turn 3 deck, even Ascendancy combo nowadays with shitty cantrips is a consistent Turn 3 combo decks. When Brainstorm gets banned, only the amount of masturbation in Legacy will increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedleeds

So ban the worse card, that's played in lower numbers because? again? Pillar something? Would quit? Modern?

Edit: forgot about Why not just ban Island?

---

While I disagree with you on almost everything else you say in this thread, I agree that a Ponder ban is just dumb. Banning it serves no practical purpose from anyone's perspective aside from death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedleeds

So ban the worse card, that's played in lower numbers because? again? Pillar something? Would quit? Modern?

Edit: forgot about Why not just ban Island?

---

There lies the problem, Ponder is not strictly worse. It's strong in its own right, I may argue that Ponder is the glue that binds the cantrip cartel shell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

A Ponder ban is a good compromise: the blue cantrip cartel is dealt with, Brainstorm/ Preordain/ Gitaxian Probe/ Delver/ Young Pyromancer and delve all get nerfed in the process, give less incentive to play blue and allow players to gravitate towards SDT and Sylvan library.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

In a vacuum, Ponder or even Sensei's Top and Sylvan Library (since they are permanents) are much better enablers/ manipulators. Brainstorm forces you 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?

---

Lastly,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

If Brainstorm gets banned, you kill off dozens of innocent blue-based decks, whether you like them or not, are also part of a healthy meta as well as non-blue decks.

---

Edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Of all the idea floated, this one has the most chance of being the lest useful.

---

My statement is still in the context of a "Treasure Cruise and Ponder ban" of course. I'd be inclined to believe your statement if you 1) actually work with R&D OR 2) have playtested every deck with Preordain (as proxy) and not once in a single game cringed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

There lies the problem, Ponder is not strictly worse. It's strong in its own right, I may argue that Ponder is the glue that binds the cantrip cartrel shell.

---

Your a fool if you think banning Ponder will do all that much at all. Of the Blue cantips, Ponder is the easiest one for people to replace since most decks can just slot in Preordain in its place. No, Preordain is not as good, but it is good enough to make the impact felt minimal.

Of all the idea floated, this one has the most chance of being the lest useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btm10

While I disagree with you on almost everything else you say in this thread, I agree that a Ponder ban is just dumb. Banning it serves no practical purpose from anyone's perspective aside from death.

---

Who are any of us to argue with death, a primordial force in the universe. Other than Ponder > Brainstorm is pretty absurd. I guess your fetchless Suppression Field / Leonin Arbiter deck works better with Ponder but I think in the context of the card pool most people agree Brainstorm is universally a better cantrip. Strictly better. The slope is very steep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

There lies the problem, Ponder is not strictly worse. It's strong in its own right, I may argue that Ponder is the glue that binds the cantrip cartrel shell.

---

Preordain's scry fixes almost everything that Ponder does, being a 3 card dig for relevant cards when you need it instead of a 4 card dig, a way to put unwanted cards on the bottom of your library - which is something Ponder can't do except in exchange for a blind draw, and a valuable feeder for delve and threshold and all the rest. It's not quite as good but it works as a replacement. Nothing replaces Brainstorm on anything like a 1-for-1 basis at this point. It's much more powerful than the instants that people might choose to replace it. It's much more powerful than Preordain.

If you take Ponder out of the meta you have effectively made almost no change at all. If you take Brainstorm out the blue shell needs to look for other mechanisms to do what it did and they will not find those in the current card selection.

Blue shell as it stands:

Brainstorm
Force of Will (90% of blue shell lists)

Ponder (83% of blue shell lists)
Treasure Cruise (53% of blue shell lists)
Gitaxian Probe (52% of blue shell lists)
Daze (43% of blue shell lists)
Spell Pierce (39% of blue shell lists) x2
True-Name Nemesis (31% of blue shell lists) x2
Delver of Secrets (30% of blue shell lists)
Dig Through Time (29% of blue shell lists) x2
Jace, the Mind Sculptor (25% of blue shell lists) x2

If you remove Ponder then Preordain just slides into the slot to replace it, probably without much reflection by the people making the change. The lists that currently use both Preordain and Ponder are mainly combo lists and they'll get hit harder than the normal blue shell list because none of the other 1cc cantrips digs 3 deep and gives you the choice of the 3 on the turn you cast it.

If you remove Brainstorm then everything gets shaken up because Brainstorm is in every blue shell list. Merfolk is not a blue shell list because it does not include any of the cantrips in the standard builds. The only cards from the shell that are in every Merfolk build are Force of Will and True-Name Nemesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AznSeal

He thinks the fact that 70% of people are running blue in the first place is the problem, not the fact that blue is strong lol................

---

That 's what I'm talking about: we have no fucking clue about how many players Register blue decks. We only know that close to 70% of the decks that made it into the web via Top 8/16/32 are blue and there is no differentiation between the Top 8 of a 9 player event and a 4k player event.

Lol indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Keller

The format is fine. Nobody just has the balls to try something new or create something interesting.

---

This argument is stupid, disingenuous and aggravating as hell. It's always used because it's convenient and asks people to prove a negative.

Ban Island is a dumb and overused counteragument as well.

Volcanic Island+Scalding Tarn has now replaced Underground Sea/Polluted Delta as the most powerful (expensive?) land/fetch combination in eternal.

I would only consider intelligent suggestions like "ban Volcanic Island" from here on out.

Do the people advocating a ponder ban realize that it can't put back your miracles/dead red blasts from your hand? Brainstorm means you have to worry about such things more as well as hiding combo pieces from discard. Banning brainstorm leaves the blue decks with two powerful cantrips, but suddenly they actually have to thinkabout whether or not it is worth it to run that narrow answer. Plus it will strengthen discard to the point where maybe decks that rely on black disruption get to make a decent comeback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

That 's what I'm talking about: we have no fucking clue about how many players Register blue decks. We only know that close to 70% of the decks that made it into the web via Top 8/16/32 are blue and there is no differentiation between the Top 8 of a 9 player event and a 4k player event.

Lol indeed.

---

A lot of the problem is not having good data to analyze events. If a large tournament, say, greater than 128 people, had all of the decklists posted and tracked, you could see how many people enter the tournament with a blue deck running what list, and follow the matchups and see where they end up. Although unlikely, there's more of a problem is 5% of the field enters with blue decks and takes 70% of the top 8 rather than 70% enter to take 70% of the Top 8 slots.

Ideally, you construct a tournament with equally skilled players, with equal numbers of each deck, and see what the Top 8 looks like, but that's not really possible.

-Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

Do the people advocating a ponder ban realize that it can't put back your miracles/dead red blasts from your hand? Brainstorm means you have to worry about such things more as well as hiding combo pieces from discard. Banning brainstorm leaves the blue decks with two powerful cantrips, but suddenly they actually have to thinkabout whether or not it is worth it to run that narrow answer.

---

I'm perfectly aware since 1999. I can also fathom the collateral damage a Brainstorm ban could do to a vast number of legacy archetypes and the format since this card is essential, in conjuction with Force of Will, in keeping the format at equilibrium.

Banning Brainstorm, while keeping Ponder legal doesn't make the format safe, in fact it would be disastrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

Plus it will strengthen discard to the point where maybe decks that rely on black disruption get to make a decent comeback.

---

Brainstorm and Duress have co-existed since 1999. There is no comeback needed really. Discard only started underperforming after the release of Treasure Cruise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

I'll add that Treasure Cruise also invalidates Hymn to Tourach, Liliana's discard ability, Jace's fateseal and even Dark Confidant as draw engine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sdematt

A lot of the problem is not having good data to analyze events. If a large tournament, say, greater than 128 people, had all of the decklists posted and tracked, you could see how many people enter the tournament with a blue deck running what list, and follow the matchups and see where they end up. Although unlikely, there's more of a problem is 5% of the field enters with blue decks and takes 70% of the top 8 rather than 70% enter to take 70% of the Top 8 slots.

Ideally, you construct a tournament with equally skilled players, with equal numbers of each deck, and see what the Top 8 looks like, but that's not really possible.

-Matt

---

The rest of the problem is that nobody from WotC reads this thread, and likely never will. Everyone can e-whine until they're blue in the face (fingers?), but unless someone's going to start a serious effort to make Legacy visible to someone that actually matters, they'll just keep seeing attendance records broken at GPs and assume that everything is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sdematt

A lot of the problem is not having good data to analyze events. If a large tournament, say, greater than 128 people, had all of the decklists posted and tracked, you could see how many people enter the tournament with a blue deck running what list, and follow the matchups and see where they end up. Although unlikely, there's more of a problem is 5% of the field enters with blue decks and takes 70% of the top 8 rather than 70% enter to take 70% of the Top 8 slots.

Ideally, you construct a tournament with equally skilled players, with equal numbers of each deck, and see what the Top 8 looks like, but that's not really possible.

-Matt

---

I was really fascinated to see what the results were going to be when Jaco said he was going to publish every list from Eternal Weekend. I think he was a bit ambitious in trying to get that many done, as I am sure real life and other factors have made it very hard to accomplish.

It unfortunate, because that was a rare opportunity to see an entire metagame of that size. I wonder if he needs help or if he's just abandoned the whole idea (not that I would blame him).

The problem is most TO's don't have the time to do it. I know I don't do it for all the tournaments I host, but since I'm hosting a 40 man this Saturday, I'll make the effort to type the lists up. How's that sound?


-Matt

If nothing else, at least post archetypes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

If nothing else, at least post archetypes?

---

I agree with this. I can care less what changes X,Y and Z made to U/R Delver, knowing how many copies of given decks is as useful in a large scale event as knowing what is in them. I mean, most of the time the core is unchanged and only say 6 to 8 flex slots make up the difference before sideboarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sdematt

The problem is most TO's don't have the time to do it. I know I don't do it for all the tournaments I host, but since I'm hosting a 40 man this Saturday, I'll make the effort to type the lists up. How's that sound?


-Matt

---

I can't blame TOs for not doing it. I was at at NYSE Open and saw them typing decklists the whole day and they didn't even finish all of them. That was only 92 decklists, I cringe at the idea of typing 300+ for each event at Eternal Weekend.

I wonder if some OCR software is sophisticated enough to be able to scan handwritten decklists in and get some kind of reasonable data?

Do we really need sophisticated softwares or any of Zuckerberg's EdgeRank algorithm for that matter to solve this? SMH