Eh, its not something that would harm them much; you can easily replace it with Ponder or Preordain or whatever. It would, however, hurt control decks like Landstill and co.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacosnape
Printable View
Eh, its not something that would harm them much; you can easily replace it with Ponder or Preordain or whatever. It would, however, hurt control decks like Landstill and co.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacosnape
Sea Troll
Wall of Tears
Island
Blue
damn those topics are so annoying and pointless . . .
give it a rest legacy is just fine, u should spend more time developping and testing archetypes rather than whining every now and then.
None. The format is just fine as it is atm.
I know this wasn't the answer you wanted, but this thread is nonsense.
Why try and fix something that isn't broken?
Up.Quote:
Originally Posted by pippo84
and , for god's sake, i want the names of the 3 people who voted FOW and the 2 that voted Wasteland. :-(
Show and Tell, because it just takes the lowest level of motory skill to flip Emrakul for 90 degrees to win the game. It's just simply idiotic, and don't fuck up with shitty Tendrils-ban discussion because this is way more dangerous, considered it's played in a deck full of countermagic.
And no one wants to run shitty cards like Karakas and Diabolic Edict just as countermeasures for it.
No bannings are needed, the format is fine. I wish these screams and polls for bannings would just go away...
Robrecht
And this is the scary part about this thread. There are disclaimers all over the poll and thread saying "They aren't banning anything, we don't necessarily think anything needs banning, but if they had to ban 1 card what card do you think is the most bannable"..Quote:
Originally Posted by Odd Mutation
We're not crying for bannings...well, most of us aren't. We're not thinking the format as broken or needs fixing. It's a thought exercise. But the fact that our own members aren't reading the poll enough to understand that worries me, as that means people at WotC that make these desicions probably don't read anything on any legacy forum except "this is unfun" or "i lost to this, i hate it" and they get their panties in a twist thinking that the format is terrible and people hate it so they have to ban something to fix it. That is what we don't want.
I voted Force of Will. Now what?Quote:
Originally Posted by kiblast
Dr Jones is one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiblast
But not Natural Order? Because Natural order is a 10/10 Pro-everything for 4 mana. Show and Tell does absolutely nothing for you unless Emrakul is in your hand already, and your opponent can just drop Oblivion Ring, Sower of Temptation, Humility, or any other permanent answer and ruin your day; or they can just play Jace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piceli89
Also, Diabolic Edict and Karakas are not shitty cards. Edict is awesome creature removal that just doesn't see enough play, and Karakas combos with Vendilion Clique or Mangara for game-breaking shenanigans.
The problem with SnT/NO isn't the cards themselves. It's the increasingly powerful and stupid uncastable high cc monsters wotc prints. Wizards pretty much auto includes anti-reanimation clauses on most of these things. They need to stop doing that and start including phage clauses on them instead. If they don't, then eventually SnT/NO will become bannable problems. But they aren't right now.
Voted for Force of Will. Not because I think its broken or what not. But if I had to pick one card, I might as well make my job as a storm player easier.
Then what's the point? What thought exercise? You want to figure out what the most important/dangerous card is? Or what people think is the best card? What card they hate most? Then change the title of the poll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sims
I did read your poll and thought you meant: "Not that they will touch it... even though I wish they should"
Robrecht
Seems fairly self explanatory. What do YOU think the most bannable card is in legacy and why. Not that Wizards, or anyone, is going to ban it.Quote:
Originally Posted by poll title
Do you hate Top because it chews time on the clock? Do you think SnT decks are too strong because they're backed by FoW and it's too easy to assemble SnT + Emrakul?
It's a poll to see what the general opinion of the site is on the issue of what is most bannable and to examine why. Seems like a thought exercise to me, and the name of the poll doesn't scream "The format is borken, playze halp!"
A lot of people are saying this here, and while I agree with their overall sentiment, you have to understand that it does NOT go without saying. Just the other week, there was a 10 page thread on whether Legacy was "too broken", along with another couple page thread of supplementary data. Threads like that exist because not everyone agrees. Moreover, I am consistently confused as to how people think that this poll and the votes within it constitute a "scream" for banning. It would be difficult for me to be more clear in my opening post about the question's intent. This is not a scream for a ban. This is not even a hushed whisper for a ban. It is an exercise in determining Legacy's most bannable cards. In investigating this, we can gain insight into the format, what makes it tick, and what makes it fall apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odd Mutation
For instance, I find it interesting that the anti combo people, specifically those against LED and Tendrils, are not the majority. In fact, the high prevalence of SnT hatred indicates that this combo feels far more unfair than LED. Why? LED is a fairly well-represented player in tournaments. More people consistently encounter LED-based combo decks than they do SnT ones (deckcheck.net as source). But SnT is getting a disproportionate number of detractors, given this information. That leads me to believe that the non-interactivity and idiot-proof nature of SnT (and more generally, combo pieces) is what gives cards undue hatred. Sure, LED has more votes, but relative to its history throughout the last 4+ years of Legacy, that is expected. SnT is only now beginning to shine with Progenitus, Iona, Emrakul, and Dream Halls/Hive Mind to a lesser extent.
-ktkenshinx-
Of these, probably Show and Tell... that card is most obviously trying to do something unfair, and under weird situations I could image that it has the potential to warp a metagame where the dominant deck and anti-decks are similar ('To beat Show&Tell, play half-assed Show&Tell - you can win off theirs but don't rely on it yourself').
Highly theoretical though; currently all are fine.
Many of the others are simply 'first among equals' or require considerable design concessions. Force is less bannable than ever with the influx of manaless silver bullets for the sideboard.
SnT isn't really scary. I've raced SnT --> Emi before. Emi himself is really more of a problem. He's too good of a threat when combined with hideaways. Because of the vast number of strategies out there, it's too hard to construct a deck that can deal with a 0 turn clock that shares no weaknesses with other 0 turn clocks like Tendrils or Belcher. That having been said, I think goyf would open up more design space than any other card. Brainstorm is heavily overrated and LED and Tendrils have been fine for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piceli89
Don't understand the hate on SnT seriously... Emrakul on Turn3 is not THAT hard to race especially considering you get to attack first with the free creature you get from SnT. Also with SnT you have to play 8-10 creatures in your deck that you can't cast otherwise, and playing some big creatures on your part negate most of the benefits of SnT, not to say it's shithorrible if your opponent play SnT himself, a combo deck like aluren/dream hall/hive mind , bounce/destroy creatures, survival or even crappy cards like Duplicant/Whipcorder. Natural order is way more scary imho since you don't have to play ~8 useless cards in your deck, but just 1 or 2 and you don't have as many cons, except it isn't blue.
Hideways are slow and hateable by any color, wasteland, sinkhole, Pithing needle, Tsabo's web, etc... if anything it's storm that close much more strategies by forcing you to play blue and heavy permission or just have a 10% matchup.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeyMikey
EDIT: probably misunderstood your post.
@gheizen, I think SpikeyMikey mean that there are so many strategies trying to cheat emrakul into play(doomsday, hideaway, sneak attack, SnT, retainers, using elves to produce loads of mana) that it becames too hard to fight every possible strategy, while at the same time defending yourself against other archetypes.
Wow, this sounds so much like "Wrath of god is not THAT good especially considering they kill their own creatures too." O.o Most decks don't have anything good to put into play with opponent's show and tell, mostly it's just goyf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
There are a few problems associated with Show and Tell (and to a lesser extent, Natural Order), that most of the other cards on this list do not have.
1) Idiotproof
It really does not take too much skill to run an SnT "combo" deck. There are no decision trees, no piles, no draw 4 probability calculation, etc. It's often just a matter of turn 2-3 SnT with FoW backup, and that's the end of that. Idiotproof combos tend to be far more obnoxious than those that involve skill, even if those latter ones are more broken. A historical example of this might be the dumbly broken Skullclamp, an idiotproof engine, versus the similarly broken but at least more skillful Mind’s Desire. Desire was legal in format where Skullclamp was anathema.
Relative to the other combo pieces on the list, LED and Tendrils, SnT takes a far lower level of skill to play properly. Even in the most basic “what-if” combo scenario, “what if the opponent has FoW?”, it is much easier to resolve your SnTEmrakul than it is to crack LED in response to Tutor, or resolve your Tendrils spell chain.
2) Pitches to FoW
Extra combo pieces can help feed the FoW. That’s a big consideration in decks splashing other colors, where 20+ blue cards are the minimum FoW prerequisite (a debatable number admittedly).
3) Constantly Growing Danger
SnT has the potential to get more powerful whenever a new set is released that contains big creatures. While RoE was admittedly a peculiar “big creature” set, Wizards always puts some kind of nasty fattie into every expansion. While it is easy to stick an anti reanimation clause onto a creature, it’s much harder to put the Phage/Myojin clauses (“if not cast from hand”) into the rules text. This is for reasons of a) space and b) flavor. From a space perspective, you don’t want to clog up every awesome card with annoying rules text. From a flavor perspective, it’s incredibly artificial to give every creature such a drawback.
More importantly, casual players love to cheat in their big creatures. Whether through Elvish Piper or Pattern of Rebirth, sneaking big guys into play is a staple of the casual and even EDH scene. Wizards would be alienating many players, not just tournament ones, by SnT proofing their future fatties.
I do not believe that SnT deserves a ban, or even that it is the most “bannable” card in the format. But these are three compelling reasons to explain why SnT is ranked so high in the current poll despite its relative lack of performance.
-ktkenshinx-
'Discard' is 'underperforming' because it's a scrub noobie strategy that hands bucketloads of tempo to your opponent most games in exchange for a couple where you completely cripple them.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsabo_tavoc
I voted LED because cards with the text "add three mana of any color to your mana pool" are pretty broken. I don't expect anything to get banned, though.