Ban on Brainstorm: Yes or No (Post Snapcaster Mage)

I say no:

If brainstorm is banned:
1) Blue becomes neutered, true, but I think blue's dominance is largely consistent because of brainstorm but banning brainstorm still will not neuter blue (just run Ponder/Preordain and change your playouts a little on when to cantrip and not cantrip etc).

2) Blue has received way more good cards that simply banning brainstorm will weaken it. It's true that non-blue decks could be more viable with Brainstorm gone, but that is not true once again because combo will start preying on the format with brainstorm gone. Combo NEEDS brainstorm to truly shine, but control/blue also NEEDS brainstorm to fight combo etc. Brainstorm gone means that faster combo that win with raw power e.g. Belcher/TES (to some extent) would see a big power-increase. These are exactly the combo decks that non-blue aggro decks are weak against i.e. combo with potential of turn 1 kills.

3) Brainstorm gone means that many cards will be at risk on getting banned or at least monitored closely. This is because blue is a defining pillar and glue that holds or dominates (whatever word you choose to use here) the format. Once blue is weakened, a lot of changes will occur (could be good or bad but don't bet your balls that nothing else will get banned). It should be really format re-defining is brainstorm is banned and blue is neutered slightly.

4) Brainstorm banned, just expect Sensei's Top to be played EVERYWHERE. Top is slower than Brainstorm but once resolved and if you can maintain a slower game against your opponent, Top single-handedly beats Brainstorm for its value througout the game. Then Top will get banned, and we lose many more archetypes. Eventually Legacy is just going to end up like a better version of Modern. Sad, really not looking forward to it.

My predictions: Brainstorm gets banned, blue is still good, nothing gets solved except Legacy lost a sea of players who are disappointed that the format simply becomes one where people refuse to adapt and a format where the DCI appeals to the crowd mentality.

On the Survival issue: I was always saddened by Survival's ban. It had 6 years of history backing it up that it was a fair strategy. Vengevine and a lack of answers in the past pushed Vengevival to being one of the strongest and more resilient archetypes in Legacy. Given that today we have Surgical Extractions (including Snapcasters), I really feel that they printed extraction a little too late, or the Survival ban didn't take into consideration that the format can adjust and adapt to itself.

My only MAIN concern with people bitching for a brainstorm ban:

If you feel Brainstorm is THAT powerful and you're not playing Brainstorm, then why do you not play hate cards that really destroy brainstorm.dec? e.g. Chains of Mephistopheles, Extirpate (This is really LOL on Brainstorm BTW). It's not like you fear Brainstorm enough to hate on it v.s. fearing the 4 Survival, 1 ANT (boarding in 8 hate-cards e.g. MBTrap, Chants) or 4 Flash back in those metagames.

If you then argue that I do play a Brainstorm deck because decks with brainstorms are the best decks in Legacy, then why do we still consistently see non-blue decks that destroy said such blue decks? e.g. Goblins/Maverick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

That was some amazing side-stepping you did there. Lets try again:

Tell me CorpT, why should I play an aggro deck that beats up on blue decks but auto-loses to combo when I could play a blue deck or a combo deck that doesn't auto-lose to anything?

---

You're arguments are pretty bad.

This phrase means nothing. Go play blue. Thats what CorpT was saying all along. You either play blue or go home.

Thats why we want a ban on brainstorm to encourage other decks to have a chance at top 8. Right now, the top 8s are all tempo, U/W blade, and blue decks with brainstorms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metalwalker

Goblins/Maverick?

---

Goblins - show me a single top 8 at big torney after Jim Davis at SCG Invitational ?!?! If they unban recruiter with the same style like they did with Time Spiral, we can see some goblin decks.

Again we are stuck to one viable non - blue tier 1 deck.

Why does everyone keep touting answers to brainstorm, like Chains of Mephistopheles?

They're hard to find, they're expensive, and if they become "necessary" to compete against brainstorm deck then they become even more expensive and hard to find ala Moat...

Chains isn't an answer unless you already have them, and for most people trying to get into the format they are simply not an option.

Play Mono Black. Some thing like:

4 Thoughtseize
4 Duress or Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Dismember
4 Dark Confidant

20 Other Spells

20 Swamp

Beats Combo, control and aggro. Pretty soon this thread will become the "Ban Hymn" campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeTim

Play Mono Black. Some thing like:

4 Thoughtseize
4 Duress or Inquisition of Kozilek
4 Hymn to Tourach
4 Dismember
4 Dark Confidant

20 Other Spells

20 Swamp

Beats Combo, control and aggro. Pretty soon this thread will become the "Ban Hymn" campaign.

---

But why wouldn't you play blue in a deck like this? In those 20 empty slots, wouldn't you want to play the best card in the format, Brainstorm? And Force of Will, at that point? Aren't both of those cards simply better than anything in black?

It's not like playing two colors is particularly hard in this format.

Any time I see a deck with twenty basic anything I wonder why it's not playing blue. And if it's twenty Islands, I wonder why it's not playing any two of white, black, red, or green.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

But why wouldn't you play blue in a deck like this? In those 20 empty slots, wouldn't you want to play the best card in the format, Brainstorm? And Force of Will, at that point? Aren't both of those cards simply better than anything in black?

It's not like playing two colors is particularly hard in this format.

Any time I see a deck with twenty basic anything I wonder why it's not playing blue. And if it's twenty Islands, I wonder why it's not playing any two of white, black, red, or green.

---

Is that conducive (I probably spelled that wrong) to a healthy format?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sims

Is that conducive (I probably spelled that wrong) to a healthy format?

---

Not at all, that's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

But why wouldn't you play blue in a deck like this? In those 20 empty slots, wouldn't you want to play the best card in the format, Brainstorm? And Force of Will, at that point? Aren't both of those cards simply better than anything in black?

It's not like playing two colors is particularly hard in this format.

Any time I see a deck with twenty basic anything I wonder why it's not playing blue. And if it's twenty Islands, I wonder why it's not playing any two of white, black, red, or green.

---

Price of Progress
Wasteland
Back to Basics
Surgical Extraction


I think the fact that Legacy is so mulitcolored is largely why the anti-brainstorm comments exist. Dual lands are first and foremost what define Legacy. Saying that 80% of decks include a land that counts as an Island is no different than saying 80% include Plains. A more accurate approach here would be to say how many include Brainstorm. This, still, is not a good argument for banning. With that logic than Swords to Plowshares should be under the micsroscope too. Or wait, what about Wasteland? More decks can splash a colorless land than those that can find room for Brainstorm AND the U needed to cast it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sims

Why does everyone keep touting answers to brainstorm, like Chains of Mephistopheles?

They're hard to find, they're expensive, and if they become "necessary" to compete against brainstorm deck then they become even more expensive and hard to find ala Moat...

Chains isn't an answer unless you already have them, and for most people trying to get into the format they are simply not an option.

---

If chains where instant it would be much better. No one in their right mind will ever cast a brainstorm into a chain... If a new chain was made but instant it would be possible to surpice someone with it.

I hear many voices saing about color inbalance in top decks, but since when this game is about playing colors? Just play cards, not colors!

Comparing Survival ban to current Brainstorm state is not in place, those cards have completely different story behind them.
SotF was tier 1,5 at best, and got too powerful with Vengevine release, completely changing the format, while Brainstorm is tier 1 since the beginning, and Snapcaster release didn't changed the format that much. SM is just nice addition in certain deck types, while he is really poor in other, just people have to realize the card is not so great and basically overhyped.

Legacy without Brainstorm would change dramatically, possibly leading to next problems and ban-wishes, but it is to hard to predict what would happen, and I don't believe anybody will take the risk of banning it.

Instead of supporting restrictions, Legacy players should be more inventive, developing wide range of new archetypes instead of jumping onto bandwagons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shtchepahn

Instead of supporting restrictions, Legacy players should be more inventive, developing wide range of new archetypes instead of jumping onto BANwagons.

---

Fixed.

Just kidding. I agree, this game is about inventive deck building and winning in creative ways. There are many viable achetypes, even ones that include Isalnds but not Brainstorm. This sort of "problem" that arises (I don't think it's a problem) should be met by a deck that can beat the metagame. That's why we call them Decks To Beat. Not so we can all look at the list and say we need 4x of one particular card. But so we can look at what strategies are prevalent and how we can beat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeTim

Price of Progress
Wasteland
Back to Basics
Surgical Extraction

---

I really don't think any of these are a good argument not to play two colors. Four Underground Seas is pretty negligible in the face of Price or Progress, Wasteland, and Back to Basics, especially when you can Polluted Delta for a basic Island.

And I really really doubt people are bringing in Surgical Extraction against your UB control deck. And if they are, you're going to win because they're playing terrible terrible cards like Surgical Extraction instead of good cards.

Quote:

---

With that logic than Swords to Plowshares should be under the micsroscope too.

---

Swords to Plowshares is a Swords to Plowshares. Brainstorm can be anything. It can even be a Swords to Plowshares.

The argument to ban Brainstorm isn't that its too popular, its that its too good -- its popularity is simply one of many indicators of this. If the argument was simply that "popularity = banworthiness," we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We're having this discussion because Jesus Christ have you played with Brainstorm? It's head and shoulders above any other card in the format. And while there are certainly arguments not to play Swords to Plowshares in a deck, not playing Brainstorm in a Legacy deck is legitimately a bad strategic choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

The argument to ban Brainstorm isn't that its too popular, its that its too good

---

That isn't a useful argument. There will always be some best legal cards. You can't just ban each card that is the best. Banned cards are the ones like Survival or Misstep that completely polarize the format. Brainstorm doesn't do that, no matter how much you might hate the color blue.

Its funny because both Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine and Brainstorm/Snapcaster Mage issue can be resolved by using graveyard hate as a deck building standard.

I mean if decks can put creature removal on the main, why not graveyard hate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy

That isn't a useful argument. There will always be some best legal cards. You can't just ban each card that is the best. Banned cards are the ones like Survival or Misstep that completely polarize the format. Brainstorm doesn't do that, no matter how much you might hate the color blue.

---

I'm not arguing to ban it because its the best card, i'm arguing for a ban because its too good. The two concepts are wholly different.

And if you don't think that Brainstorm is polarizing, I have some Taigas to sell you for the price of any blue dual.

NOPE

I am honestly very, very surprised to see people talking about banning SCM and Delver. We have only had the cards for a handful of weeks... Give the format some time to adjust, seriously, this was faster than people started crying about Mental Misstep.

This is supposed to be one of the better Legacy communities, but there does seem to be a lack of wanting to innovate... There are decks that beat t1 Delver people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

Swords to Plowshares is a Swords to Plowshares. Brainstorm can be anything. It can even be a Swords to Plowshares.

---

Brainstorm can only be whatever you find in the top 3. The rest of your 60 can only dictate what you find. DCI has removed virtually every "tutor" from the format, now one that says "search 5% of your deck, put some of those in your hand, don't shuffle afterward and put 2 dead cards in it's place"? Yes, it is good, especially with Fetchlands. I have played it too. And Dark Confidant. And Jace. And Sylvan Library. Wait, remember Sylvan or Brainstorm/Abundance? Talk about broken.

Typical that a blue hater like CorpT would bow out once challenged. Either that or he's busy.

Riddle me this: if Brainstorm is so powerful for blue decks, then why does the only competitive mono-blue deck (Merfolk) not use Brainstorm in more than 19 top eight decks in the past 4 years?

I' am voting for No because:

-I don't see how Snapcaster broke Brainstorm. I almost never flashbacked Brainstorm with it and almost never got it flashbacked against me. (maybe I just didn't get the title right)
-The impact of Banning Brainstorm is unpredictable and I personally think that the Meta will become less diverse. The Meta will definitely change but what makes people so sure that the Meta will become more diverse or better in general?
-Brainstorm is not broken in a way, let's say Flash was. In general I have the opinion that Banning should only happen if absolutely necessary (e.g. a Combo dominating everything, no answers or not enough answers exist, invalidating a large number of deck-types,..).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

Riddle me this: if Brainstorm is so powerful for blue decks, then why does the only competitive mono-blue deck (Merfolk) not use Brainstorm in more than 19 top eight decks in the past 4 years?

---

Hasn't this been answered ad nauseam in the other thread? Merfolk should be playing brainstorm and just because people top8 without it doesn't mean its optimal.

Also when the hell did "blue hater" become an offensive name?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

Hasn't this been answered ad nauseam in the other thread? Merfolk should be playing brainstorm and just because people top8 without it doesn't mean its optimal.

---

Are you really suggesting that no one tried it in Merfolk and that the reason for it not being played is that people just didn't realize that it would make the deck better?

Merfolk has reasons for not playing it but it is certainly not that people doesn't realize its power.

Imho, it is an uphill battle to defend Brainstorm in Merfolk. Brainstorm is awesome, but not in Merfolk (at least not in my experience).

Outside of the discussions of whether or not Brainstorm will or should be banned, I'm wondering what the Legacy metagame would look like without Brainstorm. What decks crumble, weaken, improve, and rise to the top both directly and indirectly because of a (hypothetical) banning of Brainstorm?

Combo decks and blue-based aggro control decks seem to be the largest losers. Do they merely weaken or crumble without Brainstorm? I'm not sure who the winners would be.

Merfolk, for example, thrives because it preys upon Brainstorm-using decks, and if Brainstorm got banned, Merfolk's presence would likely diminish. That might seem counterintuitive, as Merfolk's matchup against decks which previously relied on Brainstorm would be greatly improved, but the decks which used Brainstorm may have been keeping Merfolk's predators at bay. Assuming the presence of previous Brainstorm-using decks would diminish, and Merfolks predators became less vulnerable or more abundant in the metagame, Merfolk may weaken. Merfolk would be both less necessary in the metagame and more vulnerable.

It is an interesting thought experiment. It kinda reminds me of that No-goyf tournament we had here on MTS.


peace,
4eak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zunam

Are you really suggesting that no one tried it in Merfolk and that the reason for it not being played is that people just didn't realize that it would make the deck better?

Merfolk has reasons for not playing it but it is certainly not that people doesn't realize its power.

---

I'm suggesting that people hear other people say Brainstorm is bad in merfolk and copy lists without Brainstorm without really testplaying it for themselves.

What reasons does Merfolk have for not playing Brainstorm?

I suspect that non-blue combo and aggro-combo decks would rise. Chalice stompy decks would appear since if you can't use brainstorm, may as well play a deck that doesn't use it anyways. Zoo and Maverick would also go on the rise. I think the meta would speed up quite a bit, ensuring that Goblin decks stay dead. Merfolk would die off as there are less people playing blue. Belcher decks might appear in larger numbers since it has to worry less about someone having the ability to have FoW turn 1 when on the play.

It'd be interesting to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

I'm suggesting that people hear other people say Brainstorm is bad in merfolk and copy lists without Brainstorm without really testplaying it for themselves.

What reasons does Merfolk have for not playing Brainstorm?

---

Their deck is already highly redundant. They also don't run fetchlands and those that do have really bad mana bases (2 colors with 4 wastes and 4 manlands? Ouch).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

Their deck is already highly redundant. They also don't run fetchlands and those that do have really bad mana bases (2 colors with 4 wastes and 4 manlands? Ouch).

---

Let's not pretend that all cards in Merfolk are equally good at all times. For example. Merfolk plays lands.

Also I really doubt its that difficult to play fetchlands in Merfolk... You can be monocolored and play fetches.

My guess it that the best Aggro decks would be dominating (Zoo, Goblin, Maverick).
These are just the Best at what they do and will not allow any magical rise of other Aggro decks just because of the Banning of Brainstorm.
Stormcombo will struggle except for maybe Belcher and SI which could become the decks to beat Aggro.
Rock/Junk style deck Aggro-Control will rise a bit but still loose to both Ultra-Fast Combo and won't do too well against dedicated Aggro.
Merfolk will disappear as will controlish StoneBlade Decks or Control in general.

If this would be a desirable Meta: I don't know, maybe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roman Candle

Let's not pretend that all cards in Merfolk are equally good at all times. For example. Merfolk plays lands.

Also I really doubt its that difficult to play fetchlands in Merfolk... You can be monocolored and play fetches.

---

You are listing what Brainstorm does but not why it would make Merfolk better. Yo have to ask yourself: Is changing the deck (so that it runs fetches; cuts whatever cards to fit Brainstorm) really worth the effect Brainstorm is providing? Have you tried it?
At least I didn't like it at all (which doesn't necessarily mean anything but was enough for me to discard the thought of running it).
That also doesn't mean that Brainstorm is good card in general so let's start discussing the topic again.

I would definitely quit playing legacy if brainstorm was banned.

I'm going to explain right now that it's a bad idea to look at cards only in terms of function, outside of power level. Like StP is StP because of its efficiency, flexiblity and cost. If StP were banned tomorrow, a lot of decks would pick up Path to Exile, but many wouldn't because some decks care about that drawback a lot more. And if, God forbid, both StP and PtE were banned tomorrow, very few decks would start playing Sunlance and Condemn.

So simply saying that banning Brainstorm will just cause people to swap out those slots 1-for-1 for Top or Ponder is misguided at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace13

When if at any time has it been closer in Legacy?

---

Having done these numbers several times over the years, there's been a steady and creeping growth of blue as a percentage of winning decks since virtually the time it was created.

I did the numbers over a year ago in this thread, most recently, before Survival got axed.

At that point, with Vengevine decks, many of them without white, dominating, we had seen the first downward tick in blue for a while, but it was still around 65% of the field. Now it's up to about 75% in one year, and I honestly think blue is probably being underplayed atm. We're already seeing a decline in Zoo's numbers, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeyMikey

I'm not sure when it happened, but Legacy became the format of Chicken Littles at some point.

---

Weekly SCG 5k decklists for people to overanalyze has probably contributed to this. I'd be more interested to see what % of the field played Brainstorm and did well with it over multiple large tournaments versus other cards/archetypes. If there were 5 Burn players out of 500 and one made top 8, versus 50 Uxx Tempo players and 2 made top 8, which says more about a deck's ability to win in a given metagame? Did the Burn player have good matchups all day, or rip Price of Progress every time he needed it, or sneak in on fortuitous breakers?

My point is that there's so much variability in every game of every matchup of every round of every tournament, that it's only so worthwhile to use Top 8s and Top 16s as a basis for arguing the banning of a card that (a) is played and so many archetypes, and (b) doesn't have a powerful effect on the game-state.

What I would be interested to see is the results of some matchup-by-matchup testing that could give insights such as "Tempo RUG was able to consistently win versus [goblins,zoo,whatever deck is allegedly being pushed out by Brainstorm] on the back of the card selection and quality provided by Brainstorm", "[Non-blue Deck X] is not worth playing because adding blue/Brainstorm would improve it's worse matchups and turn it into [existing blue deck]", or "[Non-blue Deck X] is not worth playing because it has a bad matchup against blue decks, and it can't be adjusted to beat a blue metagame without fundamentally changing it".

I still think that the almost weekly lists that are published are as much to blame as anything for decks you're going to face at any given tournament. People (myself included) will go look at what's placing at large events, figure that deck must be good (it probably is) and go play it. Then, 50% of the field does the same thing, and likely 50% of those decks will make the next top 8 provided they have an even matchup against the rest of the field. When combo cropped up after the banning of Mental Misstep, everyone picked up something blue because conventional wisdom is that blue beats combo. I guess now that blue is everywhere, the field must either think that nothing has a favorable matchup against all the flavors of blue, or people would rather play Tempo RUG or UW Stoneblade than something like Maverick.

tl;dr - no, because I like to play blue and Brainstorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy

You skewed that data dramatically to favor you.

Red may be more than 10% of only 30 decks but I expect it is in dramatically more decks in lower percents.

Why don't you provide more information if you have it so available? If your data is so strong and convincing you shouldn't need to manipulate it and be vague.

Also, I'm absolutely ok with blue being in 85% of those decks (whichever decks they are). It's ridiculous to decide that each color must be exactly equally represented. The format shifts and it isn't the end of the world. Bans aren't needed.

---

In the long run we're all dead, as Keynes said. Why shouldn't Wizards actively shape the format to improve it?

I see a lot of people applying a lot of bad and flawed economic theories to the metagame here. First it was efficient market theory, and now it's the belief that the metagame is self-correcting if given enough time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misplayer

Weekly SCG 5k decklists for people to overanalyze has probably contributed to this.

---

Actually, it was a lot easier when we had Deckcheck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Actually, it was a lot easier when we had Deckcheck.

---

Eh, not really. Deckcheck sampled a much larger number of tournaments and so there was more likely to be variation in the data, allowing for a more well-rounded look at the metagame. With only one data point (the last SCG T16), it's much easier to come up with a skewed picture of the metagame and assume that strategy X is too dominant/unbeatable/needs a banning.

I mean it was easier to get a broader look at the metagame.

I agree that the SCG Opens alone give a very narrow and somewhat stifled look at Legacy, there's a big SCG echo chamber effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

I want to ban Brainstorm.

---

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but everyone in this thread. I have two questions (and this is assuming that the blue decks in question have reached a point of unanswerability in the current metagame with making a specific deck to prey upon it e.g. Affinity, anti-Affinity)-- are you positive that banning Brainstorm would prove to be more effective in mitigating the dominace of blue over banning and/or unbanning something else? Have you fully considered the potential repercussions of a metagame without Brainstorm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by (nameless one)

Its funny because both Survival of the Fittest/Vengevine and Brainstorm/Snapcaster Mage issue can be resolved by using graveyard hate as a deck building standard.

I mean if decks can put creature removal on the main, why not graveyard hate?

---

I like this post...in a format as diverse as legacy, dedicating maindeck slots to graveyard hate may just be the most pragmatic approach to the entire situation.

Kudos for this post, Oh Nameless One.

Well, Zoo decks main-deck artifact/enchantment hate ala Qasali Pridemage. Why not do the same for graveyards by using creatures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinTrudeau

This isn't necessarily directed at you, but everyone in this thread. I have two questions (and this is assuming that the blue decks in question have reached a point of unanswerability in the current metagame with making a specific deck to prey upon it e.g. Affinity, anti-Affinity)-- are you positive that banning Brainstorm would prove to be more effective in mitigating the dominace of blue over banning and/or unbanning something else? Have you fully considered the potential repercussions of a metagame without Brainstorm?

---

Here's what I think:

• Snapcaster gets worse. Not being able to draw EOT for three limits Snapcaster to flashing back removal or Spell Snare/Pierce on the opponent's turn. Snapcastering on your turn for Ponder/Preordain is probably not good enough when you could just run Top and get a similar effect every turn for 1.
• Storm combo gets worse. Ponder and Preordain are not as good in storm combo because they put fewer cards into your hand on your combo turn. I don't know how much worse that would make these decks, but they would likely take a significant hit.
• Blue tempo does not get significantly worse. You lose the ability to dig for counters on an opponent's turn, but since most of your counters are either free or one mana, tapping a bit on your turn to set up a counter wall is not a significant cost. Furthermore, for what these decks are trying to do, Ponder and Preordain are not that much worse than Brainstorm.
• Blue control does not get significantly worse. These decks care more about drawing three and then shuffling away chaff, but you still have access to Top to sculpt draws. We might see people turn to stuff like Predict to plug the gap a little bit, but I don't think losing Brainstorm takes a ton of wind out of these decks' sails.
• People will abandon blue because it is perceived to be much worse now. Format talking heads will likely proclaim the death of blue because of the loss of Brainstorm means there's no true "draw three" in the format anymore. Losing Brainstorm is a hit to blue control because, despite the fact that casting Brainstorm nets you no increase in hand size, your hand's card quality goes up much more from casting it than from casting Ponder/Preordain. However, the perception of blue's weakness will likely cause a shift in the meta, with people either leaving the format (as Nightmare has threatened to do, IIRC) or people choosing "non-real" decks like Zoo or whatever.

Make no mistake: losing Brainstorm is a big, but not insurmountable, deal. Blue gets worse, but not significantly so. However, I think banning BS will snap people out of autopilot and lead to less blue, which accomplishes the goal of a diverse meta even if BS doesn't need to be banned in an objective, "in a vacuum" sense.