All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

A common assumption, but never explicitly stated! Who exactly are you quoting, btw? Not WotC, I think!

MM was statedly printed to make the format less blue, which failed. But they never say that is why it was banned! The official explanation for the ban was in "hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep". And that's a genuine quote! WotC has never defined a diverse meta game on the basis of colour:.

---

You're just pushing an agenda here. Anyone reading this:

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, it turned out poorly. Looking at high-level tournaments, instead of results having blue and nonblue decks playing Mental Misstep, there are more blue decks than ever. The DCI is banning Mental Misstep, with the hopes of restoring the more diverse metagame that existed prior to the printing of Mental Misstep.

---

Can see that "a more diverse metagame" is directly referring to the previous sentence. They wanted a less blue meta by giving non blue ways to stop combo and counter Brainstorm, but instead the format slowed down and blue got more dominant.

Sigh, i feel like discussing with climate deniers, it's just useless. Facts are useless, quotes are useless, precedents are useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

Sigh, i feel like discussing with climate deniers, it's just useless. Facts are useless, quotes are useless, precedents are useless.

---

While at least we have something in common! Not a dig at you, just in general. Your post is very well reasoned, even if I challenge some of your assumptions.

Regarding the WotC quote, it is not at all clear that the reason for printing the card (and the admission of that failure) is equivalent to it's reason for it being banned. For one, WotC have actually qualified meta-game diversity on their banned list page. I even provided a link - facts and quotes! For two, it was pretty obvious to most Legacy players that MM obliterated archetype diversity, so there is no surprise they didn't need to say that.

That whole explanation looks to me like they are justifying the printing of the card rather than justifying the banning of the card. They hardly needed to justify the ban! You can disagree, but likening my position to climate denial is a bit much.

If your interpretation of that caption is correct, why has the format become even more blue (for a long time now) with no bans? I see three possibilities:

1. WotC were full of shit about that being the reason for the ban.
2. WotC have since changed their minds about a 70+% blue format being cause for a ban.
3. You are misinterpreting the WotC.

Take your pick - they all lead us to the same conclusion.

Edit - for the record I am a firm believer in climate change!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

Sigh, i feel like discussing with climate deniers, it's just useless. Facts are useless, quotes are useless, precedents are useless.

---

I know I'm picking at a simile and that they rarely bear close inspection, but the difference between these situations is that global warming is potentially an unavoidable extinction level event, and the prevalence of blue is more a matter of some people not liking a color and feeling bad about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

While at least we have something in common! Not a dig at you, just in general. Your post is very well reasoned, even if I challenge some of your assumptions.

Regarding the WotC quote, it is not at all clear that the reason for printing the card (and the admission of that failure) is equivalent to it's reason for it being banned. for one, WotC have actually qualified meta-game diversity on their banned list page (I even provided a link - facts and quotes). For two, it was pretty obvious to most Legacy players that MM obliterated archetype diversity, so there is no surprise they didn't need to say that.

That whole explanation looks to me like they are justifying the printing of the card rather than justifying the banning of the card. They hardly needed to justify the ban! You can disagree, but likening my position to climate denial is a bit much.

If your interpretation of that caption is correct, why has the format become even more blue (for a long time now) with no bans? I see three possibilities:

1. WotC were full of shit about that being the reason for the ban.
2. WotC have since changed their minds about a 70+% blue format being cause for a ban.
3. You are misinterpreting the WotC.

Take your pick - they all lead us to the same conclusion.

Edit - for the record I am a firm believer in climate change!

---

You forgot one possibility:

4. Erik Lauer is a lazy PoS that doesn't manage the Legacy B&R list as he should.

Inaction doesn't necessarily mean that they're actively trying to manage the format, like some people interpret it.

We have multiple cards on the B&R list that could be unbanned without causing major trouble, yet nothing happens. It took years to get Land Tax off the list, for example.

Just look how much Erik Lauer cares

Modern got in-detail explanations for the bans.

Legacy? 2.5 lines about that basically read: Too much UR Delver - TC banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

You forgot one possibility:

4. Erik Lauer is a lazy PoS that doesn't manage the Legacy B&R list as he should.

Inaction doesn't necessarily mean that they're actively trying to manage the format, like some people interpret it.

---

What inaction? We've had a ban recently, so clearly they are watching and taking action when they think they should. Just not when you think they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

We have multiple cards on the B&R list that could be unbanned without causing major trouble, yet nothing happens.

---

Unbaning safe cards is not at all necessary like banning problem cards is. Quite the opposite, as should they misjudge the safety of the card it would be a train-wreck. Seems they unban a card with every new ban lately. One could speculate that they are saving the unbans to lessen the blow of any cads they may have to ban in the future.

Either way, you can't equate choosing to not unban cards which are probably not problematic with a lack of effort to ban cards which are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

Modern got in-detail explanations for the bans.

Legacy? 2.5 lines about that basically read: Too much UR Delver - TC banned.

---

Probably because that was a lie. R/U Delver was taking down all of ~11% of top eights at the time (two months leading up to the ban) - not even the top preforming deck, and not nearly what Jund was doing in its heyday. I'd love to know the real reason for banning TC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

• Earthcraft - potential boost to Enchantress
• Mnid Twist - potential boost to Tezzerator
• Black Vise - potential boost to Affinity

I realise the last two decks do run blue, but Affinity runs very little, and neither deck runs the cantrip package that so many players are sick of seeing. I would unban all these cards if it were up to me.

---

This sums up your myopic view point, you can't think about individual card power level. If a card isn't in "a deck" you can't seem to even analyze the card, its usage rate, its power level. The first thing you do when an unban is suggested is head over to the decks section and figure out what deck "it goes in". This is where the colossal gap is between sides of this argument. Some people think in terms of cards, others just stare at deck lists and wonder what goes in and out as the BNR changes and new sets are printed.

All I ask is that they leave my Dig Through Time alone!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedleeds

This sums up your myopic view point, you can't think about individual card power level. If a card isn't in "a deck" you can't seem to even analyze the card, its usage rate, its power level. The first thing you do when an unban is suggested is head over to the decks section and figure out what deck "it goes in". This is where the colossal gap is between sides of this argument. Some people think in terms of cards, others just stare at deck lists and wonder what goes in and out as the BNR changes and new sets are printed.

---

Really, the consideration should be in the context of the whole card pool, not just individual deck lists. When Flash was unbanned unerrataed, it didn't really fit into any of the active deck lists well.

Edit: I described the change in flash incorrectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

When Flash was unbanned, it didn't really fit into any of the active deck lists well.

---

Flash was never unbanned.
It had a power level errata removed, which caused to to work with ETB and LTB triggers, and was banned after 1 major tournament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedleeds

This sums up your myopic view point, you can't think about individual card power level. If a card isn't in "a deck" you can't seem to even analyze the card, its usage rate, its power level. The first thing you do when an unban is suggested is head over to the decks section and figure out what deck "it goes in". This is where the colossal gap is between sides of this argument. Some people think in terms of cards, others just stare at deck lists and wonder what goes in and out as the BNR changes and new sets are printed.

---

I never in anyway said nor implied that those cards do not have the potential to spawn new decks, so don't put words in my mouth please. Contrary to the popular adage, when you assume you really only make an ass of yourself. "Sums up my myopic view"? Real classy; I see you're a gentleman and a scholar both (not really).

All I am saying is that those cards could, at the minimum, potentially boost the decks I cited. In the grander context, I was saying that this type of card (cards with narrow applications) is what the game needs if we want to see more decks not running all those cantrip spells. Obvious some narrow spells can go in cantrip decks too. The point is that cards which are simply good will generally find a home in a three colour good-stuff deck, which means blue cantrips. If we want decks without cantrips, we need cards that support unique strategies.

Edit - Those cards actually are very poor by themselves. Twist needs ramp to be any useful, and it's not good ebough to build around. Basically it needs a non-combo deck which runs ramp anyway. Tezzerator or Mud are potentials for this. Earthcraft needs Squirrel's Nest. Enchantress is a natural shell to test this in, and a way to win quickly may be just what the deck needs (like Lands needed Marit Lage). Vise needs a deck that is aggressive enough to to appreciate the damage, but also a deck which card find some use for the card all those times it will be a dead draw.

I'm not saying new brews can't emerge - I'm just saying that these cards could encourage these unique decks and possibly add diversity to the meta.

Also, what do you mean by "usage rate" of a card which isn't played in decks? Wouldn't it have a usage rate of zero?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Real classy; I see you're a gentleman and a scholar both (not really).

---

You always an ass or is this a new development?

I wonder what the difference is between large events and small stores. I remember when Clamp got banned Wizards apologised to those at card shops just enjoying themselves fairly with the card. I mean history shows it had to go. Apologies or no. But these days, you have kind of a full reverse happening. Legacy is more of a grass roots thing. I wonder if the apologies go the other way. "Big events can become streamlined and stale, we will not change things though because we think the smaller, store based metas are not withholdent to the large events."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

You always an ass or is this a new development?

---

Pretty new - I've never felt the need to be that abrassive like this on public forums (not that I can remember), but when a user makes a groundless assumption about my thought process and insults me based on that assumption, I want to call them out. You should have seen what I almost posted!

Note that you are treating me no better that I am treating him, the only difference is I didn't prompt you by insulting you. If I'm an ass, what does that make you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

wonder what the difference is between large events and small stores. I remember when Clamp got banned Wizards apologised to those at card shops just enjoying themselves fairly with the card. I mean history shows it had to go. Apologies or no. But these days, you have kind of a full reverse happening. Legacy is more of a grass roots thing. I wonder if the apologies go the other way. "Big events can become streamlined and stale, we will not change things though because we think the smaller, store based metas are not withholdent to the large events."

---

Not that I doubt you, but I remember that sort of apology when they banned the artifact lands. The sypmathised with all the players who would lose their cool and creative decks which used but didn't abuse artifact lands. But the made the analogy of a casual player using Black Lotus to speed out Wooly Malmoths, and stated the competitive sceene had to determine the banned list. I don't recall specific details about the banned announcement for Skull Clamp.

Are you suggesting that WotC now don't consider tournaments scenes when making Legacy ban decisions? This seems a bit far fetched because gathering data on the hundreds of LGSs across the world would be impossible. When they banned TC do you think this was based on a notion that TC was hurting diversity at the LGS level? How would they know?

Me? I am a royal prick but fuck, I am totally honest about it.

I am suggesting that a lot of the data that Wizards has is ignored in their banning decisions yes. I feel like they leave events to be their own little world and leave them be. Since there is no chance that Legacy will ever be a Pro Tour format again they dispose of all real responsibly and let it Coast. I mean, if a card, single card had 60% penetration in Modern who would really think it would stick around?

To people who will say though that Modern and Legacy cannot be compared, think about when Wizards tried to remove Modern from the Pro Tour. I have listened to podcasts (I think Masters of Modern) on this topic where they had someone from Wizards saying they wanted to be hands off, that's why the pulled the format.

Legacy I think is the same. They pulled the format, hands off now. So it matters not a great deal how things fly. On stores, people will play what they have. Not everyone can build anything and everything. Some people are still playing Goblins on a Friday night. Some RUG. Providing proof if that is not hard, go to a store and see what is being played.

As for TC. I think it did. No small amount of people here (A small sample size I know but hell, I can only talk about what I have seen) made the switch. Also since the deck only needed 3 Duals (I know 4 was optimal) a ton of people from outside of Legacy started to build it. Legacy had a pure "Best deck" that was cheep enough that anyone with a decent collection could trade into it and it really was causing issues.

Now I will admit, this is just musings on my end, but I do wonder if that has some play in the overall equation on what is and is not banned.

I really wish WotC has been more forthcoming with the TC ban. U/R Delver had been quite modest compared to other decks at times which didn't prompt bans. I'm sure there was more to it than that. But its hard to believe they were looking at tyhe LGS level for data!

If we better understood the TC decision, we'd be in a better position to predict the future or DTT. Personally I would benefit greatly from the ban (I think). I don't run it myself, and decks like Miracles would be a softer match for me without it. Even more significant, if tempo decks become more favourable again those are much better matches for Lands than I can anticipate in the current meta.

But if they do ban TC I hope it comes with a more detailed statement about banning motivations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice-Box

Me? I am a royal prick but fuck, I am totally honest about it.

---

On the other hand, you claimed you're not here to take cheap shots at me, but you can't seem to pass on an opportunity! I Will concede that you are partially honest, and it's appreciated for what it is.

If they give us more that a paragraph on a card when they ban it I will honestly be writing them an email asking of the Ban committee is feeling ok. Don't hold your breath, you will die.

I do think they do look at other factors when they do ban things. SCG can not be the only thing they look at.

As for being partially honest. Mate, if you want more respect around here branch out. Your posting almost exclusively in the one thread the site cares about lest, pushing on arguments many would rather see die. Your going to find far more acceptance if you move to posting more often elsewhere and stop using this site just as somewhere to stand on your own personal soap box. No insult, just the way your seen here diminishes your standing to Basicly "That ban list guy".

On the bright side, you have more respect than IBA does so take that for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Mate, if you want more respect around here branch out.

---

I'm sure I will in time. It doesn't help that people flood this section with arguments so very wrong and disingenuous that I feel compelled to chime in. Just because somebody is venting, I don't think that should mean they can ignore facts and logic without being called out. I'm sure after the next B&R announcement things will calm down.

Really I'm not looking for lots of respect, just the bare-bones. What I want is quality discourse. It would be nice if folks reacting to my posts could do so based solely on their content, and not what they otherwise think of my posting practices. C'est la vie.

Edit - Thanks for this, though. I've always respected your contributions to the community even if we don't see eye-to-eye on issues of format health. :)

I have bee trying to stay away from this topic lately. But when I see hyperbole to the extent of calling Grisix Control and Omnitell strategically indistinct; and such tripe being met with acceptance rather than critique, it's hard to it on my hands. I guess I should just let it go, people see what they want to see.

Alrighty then. Hi fellas.

Crimhead, I am among those who would lump Grixis and Omni together. There are a few things to consider when evaluating this argument.

1. They are not strategically similar, but they are tactically almost identical. That is - the method the two decks employ to make it all come together is the same. Cantrips are the premiere method in Legacy. Other options include having several different cards that all perform a similar function, such as virtually all near-zero disruption aggro, the Life decks of old Extended, and Dredge. You could also rely upon tutor effects like Survival of the Fittest, Enlightened Tutor, Zenith, Intuition, Goblin Matron, etc. You could have your deck capable of several different lines of attack such as the Ironworks decks of Mirrodin block. The list goes on. Nobody thinks the two decks are employing the same strategy. But they both implement the same enabling tactic, the "cantrip cartel", because they are simply so much better at what they do than any other method. It is an important distinction.

2. This point of view is held by a lot of D&T pilots (and others, apparently) for good reason. Death and Taxes elbows its way into top tables by turning the cantrip engine into a liability. Since being a hammer tends to make every problem look like a nail, it makes sense that these players become attuned to the flow of blue decks from an outsider perspective that makes it clear that those deck all fit into the same pants even if they don't attend the same parties.

$5 says a Grixis Pyromancer deck that has a transformative Omnitell sideboard or vice-versa makes top 16 of GP Lille.

Here the gp lille trial winners.
Very various deck:

http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...015-2015-07-04

Imho this is very balanced format:

elves, pox, infect, death and taxes, merfolks, goblin, lands, storm, show and tell, delve.deck (canadian, team america), miracle, junk, grixis, MUD, reanimator, dredge, cascade.

Everytime I see a post of "This format looks so varied" I see it framed in the form of an apologist or child trying to prove a point he knows he is losing. If the format was in fact so varied we would not be pointing out the situations where it looks that way to try and overlook the many shitty times it does if the format is so varied, why are the same decks consistently at the top tables? Why does the DTB section rarely change much? Why is it that decks running the same core set of cards do objectively better?

Honestly, how varied is this format really? One data point does not a trend make. If you want to look for trends, there is a thread stickied in the DTB section that has the information your looking for. It's not painting such a rosey, blinders on picture as this single data point you wish to pin your views on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Everytime I see a post of "This format looks so varied" I see it framed in the form of an apologist or child trying to prove a point he knows he is losing. If the format was in fact so varied we would not be pointing out the situations where it looks that way to try and overlook the many shitty times it does if the format is so varied, why are the same decks consistently at the top tables? Why does the DTB section rarely change much? Why is it that decks running the same core set of cards do objectively better?

Honestly, how varied is this format really? One data point does not a trend make. If you want to look for trends, there is a thread stickied in the DTB section that has the information your looking for. It's not painting such a rosey, blinders on picture as this single data point you wish to pin your views on.

---

This.

The coverage on the Wizards site is similarly abysmal. Every paragraph they try to convince the reader that the format isn't 95% blue. They even took some pictures of people playing goblins, elves, enchantress etc... with captions: "See?? People don't always play brainstorm/force of will".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hrothgar

Imho this is very balanced format:

elves, pox, infect, death and taxes, merfolks, goblin, lands, storm, show and tell, delve.deck (canadian, team america), miracle, junk, grixis, MUD, reanimator, dredge, cascade.

---

Let's tally out the winners. Decks using Brainstorm are in bold type because, hey, that's what this thread is all about, right?

Quote:

---

U/x/y Delver: xxxxxx
S&T: xxxx
Miracles: xxx
D&T: xxx
Elves: xxx
BUG (non-Delver): xxx
Junk: xx
Reanimator: xx
Pox: x
Storm: x
Goblins: x
Merfolk: x
Lands: x
Infect: x
MUD: x
Dredge: x
Stoneblade: x

---

Besides Junk and Reanimator, no non-DTB made more than one showing, with DTBs being the most represented. Brainstorm-using decks were 21/35 of the winners (drunkposting, so there may be counting and/or taxonomic errors)...a real improvement at only 60% penetration.

This "meta", as presented by the GPT winners, doesn't look terrible (not great; way too much Blue and fast combo), but I have my doubts as to how much these results reflect the overall Legacy metagame. For one thing, 5 round GPTs with single-elimination are very different from typical tournaments that run more rounds of Swiss; different decks might be better poised in this environment, yet have zero chance in a 12+ round GP. Years ago, I used to Dredge a bit, and as anyone who has played the deck can tell you, it's a lot easier to put up 5 great rounds in a row than to put up an X-1-0 record at a large, long event.

Not to mention, the competition level of these events may be suspect. While it might be fair to assume that missing sideboards in some decklists are due to clerical errors or misreporting, it's also possible that a lot of players might have just been winging it in these events. Who knows how many effective byes a player might have had, with folks coming in with stuff like The Cure or Nourishing Lich for yuks.

Bottom line, I think thinks like Day 2 showings, win rates, and more data to come out of the GP will probably provide a clearer picture. Let's hope some sweet, new tech bursts onto the scene, but if not, I would hope the culprits of metagame stagnation are clearly represented in the Top 32 so the banhammer can strike them down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamaican Zombie Legend

Not to mention, the competition level of these events may be suspect. While it might be fair to assume that missing sideboards in some decklists are due to clerical errors or misreporting, it's also possible that a lot of players might have just been winging it in these events. Who knows how many effective byes a player might have had, with folks coming in with stuff like The Cure or Nourishing Lich for yuks.

---

You don't know how correct this statement is. Just today on stream, I watched a 6-1 Miracles player make three incorrect plays in one game.

I found this quote pretty enlightening from the official WotC coverage:

Quote:

---

First up, there are two cards that have a massive influence on Legacy: Force of Will and Brainstorm.

My own personal opinion is that Force of Will is powerful and ubiquitous enough that under normal circumstances it would be banned ... if it wasn't the safety valve of the format. ...

Brainstorm is more subtle. It says draw three cards, but you have to put two of those back. What that does do is provide enormous consistency to draws. Draw too many or too little lands? Brainstorm will smooth that out. It becomes even more powerful combined with an ability to shuffle the unneeded cards away from the top of the library such as any fetch land.

---

Note how he say that Force is in his opinion so powerful and ubiquitous that it should be banned (but it isn't because it's a safety valve for the format), but then he completely gloss over the fact that brainstormm is even more powerful and ubiquitous. BS isn't going anywhere.

Just like the dude who wrote for WotC's site in the last GP who didn't even mention Brainstorm in the Top 5 MVP cards because he didn't want Brainstorm banned:

That's not funny at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

Just like the dude who wrote for WotC's site in the last GP who didn't even mention Brainstorm in the Top 5 MVP cards because he didn't want Brainstorm banned:

That's not funny at all

---

Holy shit the cantrip cartel is real lmao

http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...ame-2015-07-05

For those who care, 77.3% of day 2 is blue decks which runs the cantrip cartel (not including merfolk).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/c...ame-2015-07-05

For those who care, 77.3% of day 2 is blue decks which runs the cantrip cartel (not including merfolk).

---

It's fine, this format is skill testing. Everyone plays the same cards and they reduce variance. It's like chess with pictures and words you don't have to read.

@Gheizen64
Agreed, it isn't balanced, each of this deck running same core.

Name, number of decks, % of day 2 meta
Miracles 28 17.2
Omni-Tell 16 9.8
Grixis Delver 12 7.4
Sultai Delver 11 6.7
Grixis No-Delver 10 6.1
Storm 9 5.5
Infect 8 4.9
Temur Delver 7 4.3
Elves 6 3.7
Shardless Sultai 5 3.1
4-Color Delver 5 3.1
Lands 5 3.1
Reanimator 5 3.1
Stoneblade 4 2.5
Death and Taxes 4 2.5
Jund 4 2.5
Maverick 4 2.5
Aggro Loam 3 1.8
Burn 3 1.8
Merfolk 3 1.8
U/R Delver 3 1.8
Sneak and Show 2 1.2
MUD 2 1.2
Cloudpost 1 0.6 -dunno if it's mono Green it's not running only 0,6% so not too much as mistake.
Dredge 1 0.6
Esper Mentor 1 0.6
Goblins 1 0.6
Total: 163 100.0

Total: 127 of 163: 77.914%

If someone tells me this is balanced I really, truly want a better reason then "But they are not the same deck". The issue is the inbreeding, not that the kids have different hair colours.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cf2n94.png

Haha if "professional" players start tweeting about it wotc might actually take action. This is the only chance something happens, which is pathetic.

It seems like Counterbalance is much more of a problem card than SDT in terms of power level.

I'd welcome a SDT ban. Miracles makes nonblue aggro a joke and doesn't exactly encourage diversity among control decks, too.

That doesn't mean that DTT shouldn't go, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rufus

It seems like Counterbalance is much more of a problem card than SDT in terms of power level.

---

Counterbalance is only a thing because of SDT. You ban SDT, Counterbalance is barely fringe playable.

This is exactly like Survival of the Fittest. Survival was busted by Vengevine, but Surivval would always be playable (just like SDT would always be playable even if you removed Miracles and/or Counterbalance), and eventually future printings would make it broken again. So Wizards did the right thing and just axed the engine - Survival.

In this case the "engine" is Sensei's Divining Top. Without the Top, Miracles and Counterbalance are much less predictable and much less broken. The correct thing to do here is to ban the Top, and watch Miracles fall to Tier 2 status and open up vacancies for a whole crop of different decks.

To iterate a list of negatives and positives that a Sensei's Divining Top ban would bring:

You ban Top, the negatives are:

- Miracles players no longer get to play the best deck in the format and crush the competition.

The positives are:

- Less slow play in tournaments by default because 90%+ of players are not super fast experts, and never will be
- Less sketchy play because constant library manipulation opens things up for this
- Less "JUDGE!" for slow play watching, which means more judges are available to help other players rather than waste time watching a Miracles player
- A different variety of blue control decks becomes viable and opens the format up to more experimentation, because right now, there is no reason to play any blue control that isn't Miracles
- A different variety of aggro decks that just got demolished by Terminus becomes a little bit more viable. Maybe they show up in tournaments, maybe not, but no Terminus gives them a better chance than now
- Tournament rounds are shorter because of the absence of Miracles players dragging things out

Given the fact that Wotc has been pretty consistent with their bannings throughout the past, I think anyone who has big hopes for a SDT ban will be disappointed.

The card has been around for ages in Legacy, and the slow play problems are not something new. So unless Legacy becomes a PT format (never....), SDT won't get banned, because it is not too powerful.
From a money perspective it does not make any sense to ban SDT. A lot of people play Miracles and would be really pissed if their expensive deck gets completely destroyed. That would turn into a lot of butthurts, players quiting Magic or simply reduce the number of packs bought. And what do they get if they ban SDT? Will people be happier and buy more packs? I don't think so.

The only realistic ban would be Dig Through Time, which can happen or not happen.

Also Ponder and Brainstorm would for sure get banned if this format was a PT format, but it is not. It is just a casual format, that has a big fan base and Wotc does not want to piss of the Legacy fan base. I think there are more people who enjoy playing with the cantrip cartel than people who want a casual format with color diversity.

It is also impossible to get color diversity in both Eternal formats, because of Wotc design decision of the color wheel. Non blue colors suck if you want to be good against a wide open field. If you play non blue, you just have to hope that you don't run into any combo decks, which are both horrible and quite uninteractive matchups.

Edit: I think there are quite a few other very good Control archetypes possible with Legacy's card pool. They don't get discovered, because Legacy is not a PT format, so there is very little incentive to build and test them for professionals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adryan

Given the fact that Wotc has been pretty consistent with their bannings throughout the past, I think anyone who has big hopes for a SDT ban will be disappointed.

The card has been around for ages in Legacy, and the slow play problems are not something new. So unless Legacy becomes a PT format (never....), SDT won't get banned, because it is not too powerful.
From a money perspective it does not make any sense to ban SDT. A lot of people play Miracles and would be really pissed if their expensive deck gets completely destroyed. That would turn into a lot of butthurts, players quiting Magic or simply reduce the number of packs bought. And what do they get if they ban SDT? Will people be happier and buy more packs? I don't think so.

The only realistic ban would be Dig Through Time, which can happen or not happen.

Also Ponder and Brainstorm would for sure get banned if this format was a PT format, but it is not. It is just a casual format, that has a big fan base and Wotc does not want to piss of the Legacy fan base. I think there are more people who enjoy playing with the cantrip cartel than people who want a casual format with color diversity.

It is also impossible to get color diversity in both Eternal formats, because of Wotc design decision of the color wheel. Non blue colors suck if you want to be good against a wide open field. If you play non blue, you just have to hope that you don't run into any combo decks, which are both horrible and quite uninteractive matchups.

---

I think you're basically right on everything except the amount of butthurt that would result from a Top ban. Miracles ports pretty readily into UWr Blade once you have Tundras, Forces, Jaces, and Volcs so it's not like they're saddled with a bunch of unplayable chaff that they have to sell at a large loss - they'd just have to switch decks. Some folks would be upset, but I do think most would keep playing Legacy and we wouldn't hear too much about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MGB

http://i62.tinypic.com/2cf2n94.png

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supremePINEAPPLE

Haha if "professional" players start tweeting about it wotc might actually take action. This is the only chance something happens, which is pathetic.

---

I think we can all agree that if someone high profile should be listened to, it should be Legacy experts, and not these Standard and Limited careerists. It makes me think of what American TV used to do during the World Cup, bringing in some baseball or football guy who watches soccer for a week a year who'd be like, "Have they thought of making the goals bigger so there'll be more goals??"

Sensei's Divining Top getting banned, after a couple of thousand playmats are gave to the players and Michael Sutfin signed like at least x thousand, would be pretty hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOLWut

I think we can all agree that if someone high profile should be listened to, it should be Legacy experts, and not these Standard and Limited careerists. It makes me think of what American TV used to do during the World Cup, bringing in some baseball or football guy who watches soccer for a week a year who'd be like, "Have they thought of making the goals bigger so there'll be more goals??"

---

.
There aren't a whole lot of high profile "Legacy experts". I'd take the Magic intuition of Pros over the opinion of randoms on The Source 100% of the time if I were the DCI, so the public statements of LSV and Edel are probably the most influential statements regarding Top that have been made this B&R cycle.