Y'all have short memories. I mean, it wasn't THAT long ago that we had top eights with eight different decks and only 50% Brainstorm penetration.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderPreaux
Printable View
Y'all have short memories. I mean, it wasn't THAT long ago that we had top eights with eight different decks and only 50% Brainstorm penetration.Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderPreaux
People are starting to brew with Field of Dreams. There's still space that hasn't been explored. Banning Brainstorm lets many more creative options become viable.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
And makes so many decks unviable.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
It turns out when you print really good cards for an archetype over and over a lot more people play that archetype. Spell Pierce > sfm > delver + snapcaster > DRS young pyromancer > treasure cruise + dig through time. Really strong, splashable, efficient creatures and spells (most demanding being UU), some even on color (remember when having a high enough blue card count to be able to use fow effectively was a thing?). These cards put the cantrip cartel into the defacto engine in legacy, with threats as efficient as the ones we have now it is just a matter of taking the cantrip counter package and filling the blanks with any of the above to make a t1 deck. They may all have different names and color combinations but they are all the same deck, and last time I checked they were roughly a third of the meta. Consider that survival got the axe when survival decks were around 20% of the meta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
I'm becoming more sympathetic towards players who think the cantrip package is too strong/versatile. That said, I am extremely apprehensive about banning cards to enhance "people's play experiences". Market research has show that draw/go, prison lock, and fast combo decks have an adverse effect on people's play experience. This is why Modem has the turn four rule (which results in banned cards which do not threaten the strategic balance). This why these styles don't exist in Standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Even within the Legacy community there is a sentiment that aggro and aggro control decks are the heart of the game while other strategies are more novelty. You may have heard the complaint that if you don't play blue you have to play prison or combo? I've never heard anyone complain that if you don't play blue you're forced to play midrange or aggro - and this was largely true in Maverick's heyday.
I would hate for WotC/DCI to start banning cards in Legacy based on what they think meets their criteria for "fun".
When Legacy was founded, OP card draw and tutors where banned by a "key rule" (there was no data, as the format was new). DTT could be banned for this reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
If they ban BS (and possibly Ponder), I wold like them to announce that they have reassessed Legacy and feel that top tier filtering cantrips are too good/efficient; and have this be a new key rule for banning. Or they could take the angle that while 100% colour equilibrium is not a realistic goal, Legacy has reached a threshold where blue needs to be reigned in just a little.
Unfortunately thanks to the reserve list this is only going to get worse over time. (On the upside the entry barrier keeps out a lot of newer players who would be attracted to the high power level but would ultimately demand WotC act to make the format more "fun).Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
But meta shifts will always be a problem in a format where a large amount of the player base can't afford to switch decks. I'm don't think this justifies banning cards because there has been a major change in the meta! But it does make a good case for WotC more actively supporting archetypes with no duals in the mana base - and to try to keep all ten duals closer in usefulness. This is a good argument for making colour balance more of a priority than it has been in the past (though I maintain that total equilibrium should never be the goal of the banned list).
It would also help if players would broaden their horizons. I suspect Aggro Loam (with Chalice) is better positioned than its numbers reflect, and that Maverick/Junk players are shunning the deck almost out of spite (they shouldn't have to run Chalice). Elves is another deck that does well compared to its meta-penetration (based on what limited data we have for it), and would probably do better if more players where to push it (and learn to play it well - it's a very tricky deck). MUD is also neglected IMO due to being a less popular style and the helpless feeling which comes with its losses. Merfolk is on the rise, and hopefully continues to thrive. Lands is a powerhouse - and despite the Tabernacle (of which there are many copies available online, including cheaper Italian versions) it is almost a budget deck compared to decks running a bunch of island-duals.
Please Legacy needs a change. Ban Terminus, SDT, and Show and tell. The first destroys ALL control and ALL creature decks and the second are a JOKE. Without this cards People could play other decks than Delver decks or ultrahate creature decks.
Metagame is: Delver, s&t and miracles, other decks are rogue.
And DTT is the next in banned list probably.
Grixis control is doing well, as is Storm. Lands is a beast, and Merfolk is picking up a lot of steam. Calling these decks rogue is misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by atopebenidorm
Also, rogue decks (actual rogue decks) still make up a significant portion of the meta and top brackets. It's wrong to dismiss them.
DTT can (and should) probably go, but I can't agree with banning S&T, Terminus, or SDT.
Ok. 6 of 8 decks on top8īs are Delver, Show and tell or Miracle control. 2 of 8 are fast combos and hate decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
There are two cards that are 4-ofs in all of those decks. I don't think Show and Tell, Top, or Terminus are the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by atopebenidorm
Where are you getting these numbers? Goldfish records the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by atopebenidorm
- Miracles - 12.39%
- Omnitel - 7.08%
- Grixis Delver - 13.27%
- Team America - 4.42%
- U/R Delver - 1.77%
How are you getting these decks to total 75% of the meta?
Last major event (SCG Premier IQ Somerset) had one Miracles deck, one Delver deck, and zero S&T.
Do you have any data to support your (seemingly wild) claim?
It does not matter if his statistics are accurate or not. One thing we can all agree upon is that cantrips fuel 3/4 of all top placing decks in Legacy, and that this percentage has been slowly rising for years. Cantrips enable those other cards and lots of others to do their thing consistently which is the reason why so many decks use them.
Full stop.
With that undisputed knowledge, a ban of Terminus, Show and Tell, or anything that is not a card-carrying member of the cantrip cartel is like trying to prevent E. coli to toddlers playing in a sewer by distributing antibiotic pills and telling them not to bother washing the shit off their hands.
Why be sympathetic? There are absolutely lots of viable options available to players who, for whatever reason, don't want to run U or cantrips. It's standard anti-Brainstorm dogma to say that the cantrip cartel locks out non-U strategies, but if people would just play any of the decks you've listed (or some others), they'd see that's not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
There's a quote in Admiral Arzar's signature pertaining to this. It's being used there as an argument against Brainstorm, as it's assuming that if you do play non-Brainstorm decks you're sacrificing your power for fun. In actuality, you can play those decks, have fun, and win. Hell, even Burn isn't horribly positioned right now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by atopebenidorm
Why not just ban U fetches and duals? They're enabling Delver, Miracles, SnT, etc to splash all the options available in the game. They also represent ~50% of the meta. [Note: I understand why this isn't a valid argument, but it feels very similar to the argument against cantrips. It's saying that "I don't like what U can do, so its tools should be banned."]Quote:
Originally Posted by jrsthethird
Is wanting to win a good enough reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Actually, I think it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Well, duh.Quote:
Cantrips enable those other cards and lots of others to do their thing consistently which is the reason why so many decks use them.
Consistency is great for the game, because it reduces luck, and enables new combos, and synergies. We should ask for more consistency across all colors, not less by banning the best (admittedly blue) consistency tools.
We all know this is a pipe dream. Wizards current philosophy kills this hope outright. You can ask, but I will put down good money on the answer being "See that door, yea, use it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartesian
No, it's not. Everyone wants to win, but no one is entitled to win. Depending on your perspective, you need to either play well enough to win, or use a deck that will win for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by testing32
There isn't a lack of options of decks that can win if played well enough. If you don't believe that, I'd recommend either playing one of the decks you think can win or changing your mindset.
No, there's one. Our own DTB forum has one tier-one non-blue deck. In the current meta, you are handicapping yourself playing anything else and the numbers back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
That quote by maharis was incredibly prescient. Imagine if suddenly the next GP (a la the Dota international) had a multimillion dollar prize pool. The meta would likely be over 90% blue, if not close to 100%. There are plenty of people out there who don't play blue because they don't enjoy it. But when you get down to brass tacks, playing it gives you the best chance to win if real money is on the line. And Burn? Are you joking?
Please do not mock me when I explain simple ideas. Some people need to be told that which should be obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartesian
Like this:
If additional consistency is a universal good why not let us all just select our opening 7 and then dictate which card we draw each turn? There is in fact a balance to be struck.Quote:
Consistency is great for the game, because it reduces luck, and enables new combos, and synergies. We should ask for more consistency across all colors, not less by banning the best (admittedly blue) consistency tools.
See, in this case a person clearly does not understand the simplest of game mechanics. So I am giving this person an education on the topic so that we can have a meaningful discu...
Oh, wait...it's you.
Oh, my.
To be clear, we want the field leveled. Right now it is certainly not which is the reason people are opting for blue in such high percentages - around 75-80%. The numbers have backed that up for a long time. There is no dispute on this subject. Whether one person shows us questionable stats on this topic or not, the facts remain because there is just so much data already.
************************
Also, Stuart, I can not piece together what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that there are plenty of nonblue decks that can win consistently?
Hey DTT https://static-cdn.jtvnw.net/emoticons/v1/34/1.0 you scared, bruh? https://static-cdn.jtvnw.net/emoticons/v1/88/1.0 You should be https://static-cdn.jtvnw.net/emoticons/v1/1906/1.0
I'm not really seeing anything else getting banned. Are Wizards brave enough to pull an unban lever? I hope.
That's a fine perspective to take. Personally, I'm not crazy about data and much prefer personal experience (though that does open me up to the whole "anecdotal" accusation). My experience via a variety of shops and tournaments is that the numbers don't follow our DTB, MtgGoldfish's meta breakdown, etc. People are playing and winning/losing with a wide variety of decks. I fully understand and believe that at the top tables at the biggest tournaments we're seeing a huge concentration of cantrip decks. However, B/R decisions effect local metas too, where I haven't found cantrips to be so problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Likewise, it's possible that in a multimillion dollar tournament you'd see all blue. However 1) that tournament probably will never exist, and 2) as is, it seems silly to be playing this game for the money.
And yeah, I feel like Burn's positioned decently :smile: Of the DTB, I'd say it's got a fair-to-good matchup against most Delver variants and Lands. Miracles isn't the worst, either. Omni and ANT seem like the tough ones. But I could be totally off base there.
Sorry if I was unclear. That's basically it. I'm saying you don't have to play Blue to win, and that regardless of what deck you play, it's not really productive or smart to expect to win. You need to either play the best you can, change your deck/approach, or be comfortable with not winning consistently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
And there are eight distinct archetypes in the DTB forum which are all different in nontrivial and interesting ways. So: there is strategic diversity in Legacy. If there are lots of viable archetypes to choose from, why do we care about the five colors being represented equally? Why are non-blue decks being tier 1 an inherent good? It's speculative at best to presume that banning all the good cantrips will give us more strategic diversity, so it must be some other reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
The justification can't just be because some people don't enjoy playing blue decks. The banned list can't be a vehicle for enforcing some arbitrary group of people's preferences. People find formats fun or unenjoyable for loads of reasons, and there's no reason to prefer any particular group of people's concerns over anyone else's.
I think the only sane policy is to use the ban list when strategic diversity is threatened by egregiously broken decks (and here, I'm talking about things like Flash/Hulk, not things like present-day Omni-Tell). In the current metagame, I don't know how one could possibly argue that this is the case.
Consistency is a double-edged sword. While it does blunt the impact of "unfun" variance (mana screw, land-flooding, losing to bad topdecks), it also introduces a host of problems. For one thing, it can reduce the built-in penalties to playing with certain cards, making them much more powerful (e.g. Brainstorm with Miracle cards, cheat-into-play combo pieces). And giving a shot in the arm to fast, non-interactive combo introduces a whole bunch of variance when it comes to the matchup lottery and the extremely skill-testing "draw 7" part of the game. Sometimes you just get Derp&Tell'd on Turn 2 with nothing you can do about it; more consistency only increases the likelihood of this happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartesian
I actually went back to the first page and read it. It looks like there has truly been over 600 pages of Brainstorm discussion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Rotten
The quote above made me laugh and also wonder how many pages long this thread would be if this had been kept up.
I'm also aware of the irony that if that sort of thread maintenance had continued, this post wouldn't last long. :tongue:
I hope many people will play DTT one last time this weekend. Because it will be the last :)Quote:
Originally Posted by theBloody
I mean, the poll say that this conversation was at one time about (in order of relevance) Sensei's Divining Top, Tarmogoyf, and Lion's Eye Diamond, so there'd probably be at least a little bit of content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
LED seems like the most bannable, just hasn't found a deck broken enough yet :)Quote:
Originally Posted by iamajellydonut
Local metas tend to have a lot more diversity (in my experience) because people play what they have fun with (this goes back to the quote in my sig). Card availability is also an issue. However, when those local players decide to go to a GP (or other competitive event), most of them are going to play the deck that gives them the best shot to win, card availability allowing. As for Burn, it has serious issue with combo but also Miracles. Counter-Top is lights out. It's solid in a meta full of Delver and non-Miracles fair decks in general, but a lot of the durdly midrange decks that it's best against (Shardless, Jund, etc.) are down right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
Strategic diversity argument = blue apologism. I still have to play blue cards and blue lands as a prerequisite to participate in your "diversity."Quote:
Originally Posted by iostream
Your second paragraph contradicts itself, as leaving the format on its current trajectory is blatant favoritism towards the concerns of blue players over everyone else.
I'll respond to the rest of this sometime in the next few days, but I did want to address this part now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
First, the market research data comes from all players, and the overwhelming majority of peole who play Magic are Standard or casual players. I imagine that if the survey focused on Legacy and Vintage players, we'd see far more support for fast combo, robust counterspells, and prison than we see among a broader group of players.
Also, restricting a card to improve subjective play experience has precedence in Trinisphere. At the time it was restricted, Shop decks as a whole weren't dominating Vintage - in fact they were still only about even with Gro decks in terms of top 8 finishes. It was restricted explicitly because getting turn 1 Trinisphered is miserable. Yes, it's a different format, yes, it was over a decade ago, but the whole point of the B/R list in any format is to improve people's play experience. The fact that my play experience might be enhanced by making my opponent's play experience unpleasant is a feature that the game has lived with for its entire existence, and is part of what you sign up for in Eternal formats.
Also, I empathize with most of the people who want to see the cantrip cartel reigned in a bit. I don't agree with them, but most are arguing in good faith and sincerely believe that banning Brainstorm (at least) will be a major boon to the format. They're right that Brainstorm has a far larger metagame penetration than would be acceptable for another card, and that it's the best unbanned card. All we really disagree on is what the proper course of action is. If you want objective ban criteria, it's difficult to arrive at any that simultaneously allow for the banning of cards that are widely agreed to be banworthy and that exempt Brainstorm and Ponder unless one of criteria is that card selection/filtering tools that don't generate 'true' card advantage are exempt. Where thr pro-ban crowd and I differ is that I think that nerfing the cartel will do more harm than good, and they think it will do more good than harm.
Also, before someone inevitably points out that Treasure Cruise or Dig Through Time would be safe if Brainstorm and Ponder were banned - I strongly doubt this. They'd be banworthy if we were left with Opt, Sleight of Hand, and Portent.
To be fair, at least from a modern day perspective, a turn one Trinisphere is a bit more than a "miserable" experience. But I do agree with the general sentiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I think this hits close to home for those who resist a Brainstorm ban. These Delve cards were a mistake for eternal formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
I may be the only pro-Brainstorm person who considers the cantrip strategy to be an archetype. I would rather see the cantrip density thinned without banning Brainstorm however. Give me Brainstorm, Opt, and Sleight of Hand, just please leave Brainstorm.
Real quick, I have a big problem with this statement right here. I have played Maverick for years and only recently acquired the cards to build Kronberger's Loam list. To do so, I turned in some chaff I had lying around, and knocked about $100 off the price to buy into Loam while keeping the stuff to play Maverick. Even then, I had to pay around $400, and I was able to pick up cards relatively cheaply from friends. Without turning cards in, and at market prices, I would probably have paid around 600USD to make the switch. Don't assume a choice is made "out of spite." Legacy prices have soared, and that is a factor in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Not to mention that the quote is terribly reminiscent of the "Gentleman's Agreement" behind the Mystical Tutor ban and why the numbers didn't live up to the power level. If they didn't take action against Mystical when they did, it would have a meta penetration similar to Brainstorm now. You could reasonably slot it into any Brainstorm deck today and it would improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
Yet those decks are the same in 50% of their cards. I don't care how different they play, there is a core of 4 BS/Ponder/FOW+blue fetches/duals, then 0-4 Probe/Preordain/Dig/Daze for nearly every DTB in Legacy. All decks have the same engine with a different strategy. Not healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by iostream
FTFY. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bruizar
I think many in the ban DTT camp are forming their opinions based disproportionately on just how one-sided the fight is between fair decks and omnitell. In a grindier game vs omnitell a fair deck is only going to face 1x DTT [legitimately cast] on turn 3 or 4; the Digs after this are all going to be free. If a deck isn't going to fight the card show and tell in the first place, I don't know that it makes much sense to fixate on DTT (especially the free ones) - there are certain spells in legacy that, uncontested, are supposed to result in a loss [i.e. the resolution of show and tell].
The more important takeaway though is that Omnitell is an outlier in the DTT debate; exclude it and you will find few 4x DTT decks, and indeed fewer decks that fire off digs without its biggest non-fetch enabler: gitaxian probe. Ban gitaxian and you slow down the delve and break the patently unfair I-know-your-hand cabal therapy. There are plenty of cards that can strand digs in hand, but they're all soft to probe/cabal.
Decks with DTT but no probe, will generally run two copies at most (and honestly they'd just be JTMS if dig were banned). In these 2 dig decks, the card is basically ancestral recall with a "can't be cast, nor resolve in the first 5-6 turns of the game" clause; begging the question: why is the game not over yet? If DTT decisively ends such a grind, I'd consider it a good thing - certainly better than spamming JTMS activations and passing turns.
You guys do understand that if they were to ban Brainstorm, there would be massive financial repercussions in the secondary market, right? Do you know how much an Underground Sea or Volcanic would tank? How about Force of Will? What would happen to combo pieces? Thoughtseize might top it's old price tag. It's not just about gameplay, money makes magic go 'round.
From my phone. I do my best, dammit!
Like five bucks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee
Sure. I've got some farmland in Florida I'll sell ya...
From my phone. I do my best, dammit!
Every format has constraints that exclude certain classes of strategies from the top tier. You're not entitled to win no matter how much you love your deck if it just isn't as good as the top decks. Formats can be healthy in spite of this, because there are multiple strategies you can choose which, given tight play and a little luck, can win a large tournament. That state of affairs exists in Legacy. There are viable blue aggro, control, and combo decks and everything in between to accommodate nearly every strategic preference one could conceivably have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Arzar
If the color of the border of the cards is the problem, then I don't know what to tell you. Banning cards until you see more black ink, red ink, etc. around the text box instead of blue ink would not necessarily have any positive impacts on the format, simply because the color of the card border has nothing to do with how many viable archetypes exist, etc. It is just unrelated to the qualities that make a format healthy! What if the DTB forum had 1000 very different decks in it that were all roughly as good, and every single one of them played 4 Brainstorms. Would you still be in favor of banning Brainstorm despite the huge diversity of strategies that you could choose from?
As for the second point, the status quo doesn't "favor blue players" because people who play blue decks aren't a monolithic entity. There are people who play Delver, who play Miracles, who play Omnitell, who play Grixis Control, etc., and they have different interests. If Delver of Secrets were banned, you can bet that Omnitell players would not react the same way as Delver players, for instance.
You just used your own argument against yourself;Quote:
Originally Posted by iostream
Explain how every delver deck is the same, but not every brainstorm deck is the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by iostream
#NOT-ALL-DELVER-PLAYERS
They're obviously not literally the same deck, but they're all playing a similar tempo style with Dazes and Wastelands. The difference between RUG and Grixis Delver is not as great as the difference between the Delver archetypes and Omnitell, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevestamopz
I don't see how I'm using my argument against myself. Banning Brainstorm would greatly harm the entire spectrum of blue decks and basically overturn the balance of the format for no clear benefit whatsoever. Banning Delver could conceivably be reasonable if it got strong enough because it's only one particular style of tempo deck - i.e. it's just one small sub-sector of the format. It wouldn't also randomly handicap the various other top decks at the same time.
I get that people have their pet decks, but be realistic: the format is healthy, and you have lots of choices. You just don't like them, so maybe the format's not for you.
Lol, what balance does Legacy have right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by iostream
Of all formats, Legacy has the least balanced metagame. Even Vintage is healthier than Legacy, and you literally have to play some variation/combination of P9 + other incredibly OP cards to be competitive. Do you want to know why?
Brainstorm.
Pure and simple.