All B/R update speculation.

Corpt has made a wonderful effort gathering the raw data, but I think people in this forum are unable to interpret raw data, so I've parsed these data through a normal distribution so that it becomes apparent by exactly how much the blue decks are better than the rest.

Online tools used:
http://easycalculation.com/statistic...-deviation.php
http://stattrek.com/tables/normal.aspx

2011: 50,55,37,75,46
2010: 56,62,36,67,43
2009: 45,72,55,62,39
Caw: pre: 57,22,40,69,22 post: 45,24,42,62,23

2011: Mean - 0.52
Standard deviation: 0.1415
Values between (0.3845 , 0.6675) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.75) are better than 94.32% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.37) are better than 13.513% of the field.

2010: Mean - 0.528
Standard deviation: 0.1298
Values between (0.3982 , 0.6578) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.67) are better than 86.30% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.36) are better than 9.78% of the field.

2009: Mean - 0.546
Standard deviation: 0.1316
Values between (0.4144 , 0.6776) are within standard.
Green decks (z=0.72) are better than 90.69% of the field.
Blue decks (z=0.62) are better than 71.30% of the field.
Black decks (z=0.36) are better than 7.87% of the field.

Cawblade std: Mean - 0.42
Standard deviation: 0.2096
Values between (0.2104 , 0.6296) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.69) are better than 90.11% of the field.
Black decks (z=0.22) are better than 16.99% of the field.

Post-Cawblade std: Mean - 0.392
Standard deviation: 0.1624
Values between (0.230 , 0.554) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.62) are better than 91.98% of the field.
Black decks (z=0.23) are better than 15.93% of the field.

In sum, the standard bannings didn't fix anything as blue puts even better results than before the bannings, and Legacy is right now MUCH WORSE than standard, with blue decks being 94.32% better than nonblue decks.

hehe, if they ever want Legacy to die a terrible bloody death, banning Brainstorm would be a good way to do it. Just take a look at vintage after they restricted it.

You kinda have to look how standard looks atm. Any deck can play the best removal in the format. Is there really a reason to play an other color when blue offers so much solutions, best multicolored manlands, card filters and great finisher and totally insane creature like Consecrated Sphinx? :P

On that 94.32% in legacy does that count in when noneblue decks are running mental missteps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rizso

You kinda have to look how start looks atm. Any deck can play the best removal in the format. Is there really a reason to play an other color when blue offers so much solutions, best multicolored manlands, card filters and great finisher and totally insane creature like Consecrated Sphinx? :P

On that 94.32% in legacy does that count in when noneblue decks are running mental missteps?

---

It counts all the decks that packed blue in 2011, which includes 6 months of pre-misstep era and three months of blue dominated legacy with a few nonblue decks splashing it.
I can't access to the tools Corpt has because I'm not a Starcity premium member, but anybody with a membership can gather the tournament relevant data for a more precise evaluation, then pass it through the online tools I posted and get the percentages.

EDIT: But I can access to CorpT's data about the post-survival pre-misstep meta vs the post-misstep meta:

2011 pre-misstep 50,57,34,71,45
2011 post-misstep 51,53,39,80,46

2011 post-survival pre-misstep: Mean - 0.514
Standard deviation: 0.1379
Values between (0.3761 , 0.6519) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.71) are better than 92.24% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.34) are better than 10.35% of the field.

2011 post-misstep: Mean - 0.538
Standard deviation: 0.1561
Values between (0.3819 , 0.6941) are within standard.
Blue decks (z=0.80) are better than 95.44% of the field.
Red decks (z=0.39) are better than 17.15% of the field.

In conclusion, blue was already broken in the post-survival meta, and it just got crazily broken after mental misstep (more than twice the standard deviation, woah!).
But mental misstep made red better, but I don't know if that's because "red decks" includes "red-blue decks" beating "nonred,nonblue decks" because they don't pack misstep.

I see little value to be gained from that kind of analysis. It includes any deck that plays blue? Throwing decks as vastly different as Landstill, Merfolk and Hive Mind into one category and just calling them "blue decks" isn't the way, I'm looking at the format. Seeing as green is super popular as well, I guess it might put up large numbers as well. It's just feels real polemic to me, arguing that something is "better" than something else. I assume this only takes "matchup data" into account, which just doesn't cut it for me. I mean, "blue decks" (just like green decks) make up such a huge portion of the metagame, that running the numbers against the rest of the field doesn't really provide a whole lot.

Still, there are some non-blue decks that just slaughter most "blue based" decks. Take GW Maverick; that decks just eats blue based control alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

I see little value to be gained from that kind of analysis. It includes any deck that plays blue? Throwing decks as vastly different as Landstill, Merfolk and Hive Mind into one category and just calling them "blue decks" isn't the way, I'm looking at the format. Seeing as green is super popular as well, I guess it might put up large numbers as well. It's just feels real polemic to me, arguing that something is "better" than something else. I assume this only takes "matchup data" into account, which just doesn't cut it for me. I mean, "blue decks" (just like green decks) make up such a huge portion of the metagame, that running the numbers against the rest of the field doesn't really provide a whole lot.

Still, there are some non-blue decks that just slaughter most "blue based" decks. Take GW Maverick; that decks just eats blue based control alive.

---

This kind of analysis can also be done per archtype basis, and also per card basis. It also illustrates the matters at point: that you are an idiot if you are not playing blue, or suggest not playing blue; that the standard bannings didn't fix standard; and that despite what some blue players hold, blue was already pretty broken before misstep, so if R&D only bans that card, I can predict in advance that it won't fix anything (just like in standard) so I can avoid wasting my time and my money for the next three months.

EDIT: And frankly, that GW Maverick beats blue control when the winning decks are blue tempo and blue combo (as can be expected from a fow-dominated format), only means that you are suggesting us to play a Tier 3 deck.

I read a lot of message on this tread since a few days, and I fail see what is the point of all peoples claiming that "Legacy will die if Brainstorm is banned". I also have problem to understand the attitude of those who say "If Brainstorm is banned, I'll quit".

Actualy, I'm not sure if the format would be better without Brainstorm or not, but I believe it's a legitime question, as the blue domination do not seem totaly healty and I'm convinced that Brainstorm is more responsible of it than any card.

So why Brainstorm is so essential to the format?

If it's about the consistancy it provide, I think that Ponder and Preordain can help almost as much to find a needed land, threat or combo piece, without being broken as Brainstorm is.

I understand that Brainstorm is a real fun card, that people love to play it and I know it's skill-testing. That said, well played, Brainstorm is perhaps a bit too good. I'm sure everybody is agree to say that Ancestral Recall is too good for Legacy. Why can't we can ask ourself if the power level of Brainstorm is not too near of Recall for being healty?

If we reached the point where playing blue, because of Brainstorm, is the absolute best strategy and playing any other color mean playing with an handicap, it will be the time to take action, and I fail to see why it will be bad for the format. Now, I don't claim we reached that point. But if the format continue to evolve toward more and more blue domination, we'll reach this point and we'll have to seriously discuss Brainstorm or its very presence could, at the end, kill the diversity of Legacy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

This kind of analysis can also be done per archtype basis, and also per card basis. It also illustrates the matters at point: that you are an idiot if you are not playing blue, or suggest not playing blue; that the standard bannings didn't fix standard; and that despite what some blue players hold, blue was already pretty broken before misstep, so if R&D only bans that card, I can predict in advance that it won't fix anything (just like in standard) so I can avoid wasting my time and my money for the next three months.

EDIT: And frankly, that GW Maverick beats blue control when the winning decks are blue tempo and blue combo (as can be expected from a fow-dominated format), only means that you are suggesting us to play a Tier 3 deck.

---

Wait, what? Why is Maverick a tier 3 deck? Maverick has done very well. It's a DTB for a reason, to say it's bad or a tier 3 deck is disingenuous.

Banning brainstorm wouldnt completely kill the format but it would kill certain decks and besides brainstorm is part of the spirit of the format.
For people who dont like brainstorm/mms/blue dominance in general, theres a great alternative and its called modern. In modern blue is weak and red is more powerful. I dont see what the issue is really. If I didnt like this format I wouldnt be calling for bannings I would simply play in a different format rather than ruin this one for others.

Statistics can be tweaked to anyone desire. They can say anything. By the way, the maverick deck is playing mental misstep, does that makes it a blue deck ? hell no !

-open garbage bin.
-put stats in garbage bin.
-close garbage bin.
-repeat the previous 3 steps if necessary !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honestabe

hehe, if they ever want Legacy to die a terrible bloody death, banning Brainstorm would be a good way to do it. Just take a look at vintage after they restricted it.

---

^ agree with this. Nobody can deny that the restriction of Brainstorm caused 'some' Vintage players to jump ship to Legacy. How many? I have no idea, but I was one of them and I am sure there were others with the same sort of mindset. Did this cause Vintage to die? Maybe, maybe not, but it was definitely one of the factors contributing to its declining popularity.

It is almost guaranteed that some Legacy players will stop playing the format or Magic altogether if Brainstorm were to be banned.

I have a love-love relationship with the playset of Brainstorm ever since playing Counterpost to great success resulting in mass moola and mass store credit back in the latter half of the 90's with the awesome Thawing Glaciers (Extended was awesome back then too). So yeah if they ban Brainstorm, there is no incentive at least for me to play Magic anymore and I will definitely sell the rest of my cards at that time since I have very little interest in Standard and no interest in Modern especially the way it is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon Amarth

Wait, what? Why is Maverick a tier 3 deck? Maverick has done very well. It's a DTB for a reason, to say it's bad or a tier 3 deck is disingenuous.

---

I was thinking that any deck you choose to specifically beat a tier 2 deck is a tier 3 deck by definition, but then I realize that tier 2 decks don't have to beat all tier 1 decks, so I probably goofed that one. In any case, you should pick decks that beat the Tier 1 or are tier 1 decks themselves, not the ones that beat tier 2 decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kikoo

I see this line of thought all the time, and so it's incredibly annoying to be subjected to this child logic. Here's the deal: If someone complains about a card, it does NOT necessarily mean he/she is unable to beat the card or the decks it's used in.

Since you label me as a cry baby who can't beat MM, I'll have to carefully explain where my criticism of MM is coming from. I have mostly played various blue aggro-control in Legacy over the years and generally believe this to be the best archetype, although I have changed deck when there was an obvious best deck (ANT, Survival, Spiral Tide, etc). I win consistently and have (had?) a high rating. Even if Misstep boosts the decks I like the most, I still hated it from the moment I saw it spoiled. I won't repeat myself as to why I hate it, because that's getting too tiring. The reason I want it gone is for the health of the format's sake, not because I keep running Lackey into it...

Anyway, I kind of regret selling 80% of my Legacy staples now that we know MM is likely to be banned. Not in a million years would I have thought they would make the correct decision. I was pretty sure the format would only keep degenerating into more and more blue mirror matches until everyone got too sick and tired of it and SCG just switched its sunday format to Modern, but now it looks like Legacy isn't going down in flames after all.

---

Sorry but it's not the correct decision it's not even a wise decision it's called making the gamblers happy. And I'm very sick that this game has becomes a gambler market.

The turth is mental misstep adds a little chaos in the format therefore as long as your willing to play a 1cc spell or focus your deck on 1cc spells your odds of winning isnt better.

A smart ban is Brainstorm because it will fuck over blue base control decks and mental misstep will total suck for those players since the card isnt a universal counterspell.

On the subject of Mental Misstep, I would be extremely disappointed to see a banning of the aforementioned card. I simply don't think that the dust has been allowed to settle since they dropped that little bomb on us, and the metagame has not yet fully adapted to it's existence. I think it deserves nearly a year to wait to see how everything adapts to it. I feel like it has been one of the best moves for legacy in a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJones

I was thinking that any deck you choose to specifically beat a tier 2 deck is a tier 3 deck by definition, but then I realize that tier 2 decks don't have to beat all tier 1 decks, so I probably goofed that one. In any case, you should pick decks that beat the Tier 1 or are tier 1 decks themselves, not the ones that beat tier 2 decks.

---

Ah, OK. I thought we were talking about beating decks like NO RUG and other DTB blue decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Cheese

I take issue with this train of thought though. If the idea of a format reaching maturity is either:

A. Everyone starts every decklist with the same X cards, then adds one of a handful of win conditions (a.k.a. Vintage)
and/or
B. Everyone gravitates to one of 2-3 well-known archetypes that dominate the field (a.k.a. Standard)

---

This sums it up perfect. Legacy is a unique format and cards like survival of the fittest and mental misstep turn the format stagnant. Before MM came around SSG had a new top 16 each week, it continuously rotated. Post MM it became battle of the NO rugs and Stoneblades, just like standard before there bans. So to keep the format moving any some direction(even if in circles) MM out of the way will help.

Why ban MM instead of brainstorm. Brainstorm is one of several cards, like wasteland and FoW, that are balanced perfectly for Legacy. Anything weaker would not get played, thirst for knowledge/thwart/ghost quarter. Anything stronger would dominate, ancestral recall/mana drain/strip mine. Brainstorm is at an acceptable power level for most of the Legacy community to accept. The format revolves around this level of power.

Mental Misstep does NOT dominate the format. It changes the format. It reduces the number of different decks you could realistically play in any given tourney. This is something the Legacy community and apparently WoTC(who knew?) do not like nor want. So yeah good riddance MM, it was fun while it lasted.

What I would absolutely love is if WotC was much more transparent in their policy concerning the B/R List and Legacy. I want an article detailing what they like/want in the format and running down the current list giving their reasoning why said card is still on it. Is it like Vintage in as much that there are cards they won't ban even if they are ubiquitous: the "pillars".

... or they could keep making decisions based on a few matches in the MODO practice room. Whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joemauer

Mental Misstep does NOT dominate the format. It changes the format. It reduces the number of different decks you could realistically play in any given tourney. This is something the Legacy community and apparently WoTC(who knew?) do not like nor want. So yeah good riddance MM, it was fun while it lasted.

---

And still legacy got more decks to beat then ever. Dont think I have seen the format having 8 decks to beat before and so many other decks that you really have to look out for.

I dont feel that legacy needs any ban as of yet.

Modern, something has to get banned there thats for sure. Cloudpost, Blazing Shoal or some of the 12-cantrip instants, Rite of Flames just a few example. Unban of ancestral vision, If that card resolves the player who dared suspended it deserves to win.

Standard, really wouldnt be surpriced if Dismember would get the axe. Its really screwing with the colorpie. There is at least 2 dismember in every deck. Dismember is the new standards Test, like jacetest, flametongue test etc.

Just do it already. Cards with Phyrexian mana should be banned. I'm not fucking kidding.

I don't care how 'broken' any given card with Phyrexian mana in its casting cost actually is. The fact that it lets any given deck play the spell for N colorless mana + X life, this just enables decks to do shit they should have no business doing per their construction, manabase, etc.

Srsly, think about the soul of the game for a second. Fuck all that "heart of the card" gushy stuff that people usually associate with speeches like this, I'm talking about as "original intent" as it gets here. Why is it okay for a deck full of Plains to cast a spell that gives target dude -5/-5? We all know what it's worth in life points to be able to kill target creature. We all know life doesn't matter until you're at 0 or less. So wtf. Just let any deck do 'off-color' things as long as they're willing to pay life? No. Just no. That's stupid. It poops on the heart of what it means to play spells that require certain colors of mana. White gets to have X effects, Blue gets Y effects, Black gets Z, etc etc. That might come off as pandering, I don't care. Phyrexian mana fucks with the soul of the game. Mental Misstep does it, Dismember does it, maybe even on the fringe of playability Birthing Pod does it, it doesn't really matter; the point of fact is the effects transcend the colors they're peculiar to, and that's a problem. It's a problem because it lets any given card that can skip over color requirements bleed into "The Best Deck" in the format, and it doesn't matter what deck it actually is; Good Cards always make The Best Deck better, no matter what color they are, Vintage is proof enough of that. So imagine a scenario where colored mana doesn't matter at all anymore. That's Phyrexian mana. I say be done with it outright.

"Red does this, white does this, etc." is a nice mindset if the colorpie wasn't messed up since years.

With this argumentation we have to BAN all red rituals because they where from blacks colopie? Ban the White Force Spike, the ISD counterspell that discards a card too, etc.?

If you came up with this in Ravnica it would have been fine, but half a decade later is pointless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rizso

And still legacy got more decks to beat then ever. Dont think I have seen the format having 8 decks to beat before and so many other decks that you really have to look out for.

I dont feel that legacy needs any ban as of yet.

---

Bold part is not true. Between Survival ban and NPH release there were more viable decks out there as could be seen from both SCG Open results and tournaments in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rizso

Standard, really wouldnt be surpriced if Dismember would get the axe. Its really screwing with the colorpie. There is at least 2 dismember in every deck. Dismember is the new standards Test, like jacetest, flametongue test etc.

---

Sounds familiar :rolleyes:

I am also pretty convinced that MM will be banned, even if its the cards that makes less sense.
In all honesty, the Formats problem is mostly Brainstorm (maybe S&T, but ppl still dont realize how broken Hive Mind in the Hands of a good player is). Brainstorm is just completely nuts (and I have to admit that I definetly took advantage from that fact for maybe the last 3/4 year in nearly any tournament) and definetly is in terms of powerlevel and its effect on games wideley underestimated. A lot of this has already been discussed ad nauseum, but I think its time to at least give those players credit which are honest enough, for the health of the format, to simply say it out loud that this is the card that keeps Legacy away from beeing THE format.
The "argument" I heard from most players is that Brainstorm is such a fun card to play with and that it isnt as good as people think it is, simply because a whole lot of people play a whole lot of awkward Brainstorms.
On the one hand, I heard some players complain not about the fact that Brainstorm is busted, but about the way the format is going to look like without Brainstorm. Thousands of players would snap-sign a contract with "Brainstorm or quit Legacy" just because they fear that the chaos would break out and a meta dominated by Belcher, Zoo and Merfolk would be the consequence of banning it. On the other hand a lot of players arent willing to change anything with the format because they play it since its beginning and a banning would keep them away from playing with and playing against a whole lot of decks that they announced to be the "essence of legacy". The reason they play the format is, understandable but also questionable, just because those cards/decks do exist.
Imagine ANT/DDFT/TES, nearly all (aggro)controllish decks and 2 card combo decks without Brainstorm. For quite some time I would have shook my head and maybe reacted the same way as people now respond to the "unbounded cheek" of even talking about banning Brainstorm. Well, I can just recommend to throw all that nostalgic crap over board, taking a look at a fresh new Legacy with a whole lot of opportunities and chances, even if this wont might happen, due to Wizards fear of players going nuts all around the world.
But back to mistep:
Some designers already said that they think it was a mistake and they completely underestimated the card in general, plus some other well-known american players (like AJ Sacher) also already complained about the card, and saying that it is definetly bad for the formats health (even if they play MM for obvious reasons) and IMO the card had its expiration date on it since it was printed, even if its the wrong decision in the long end.
I also see no reason for having cards like earthcraft on the banned-list, while S&T is legal, but thats another story.

One question in general: When is the new B/R announcement? Before or after GP Amsterdam?

Greetings

One month before, since B/R list update is sep 20th and GP is oct 22nd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rizso

And still legacy got more decks to beat then ever. Dont think I have seen the format having 8 decks to beat before and so many other decks that you really have to look out for.

---

This is convenient, the DTB math is made up so that there are 5~10 DTBs, how is this an indicator?

I think MM should be banned. Not because it reduces power of staples like SDT, Brainstorm, AEther Vial, STP, Lackey etc. but more because of the collateral damage done to less played decks that rely on 1cc utility spells to set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhhdk

I think FoW should be banned. Not because it reduces power of staples like SDT, Brainstorm, AEther Vial, STP, Lackey etc. but more because of the collateral damage done to less played decks that rely on crucial utility spells to set up.

---

Fixed.

Seriously, this is legacy, complaining about a T1 counter when you have to factor things like a T3 Emrakul or Progenitus seems stupid to me. MM isn't the cause of "pet" decks not being viable, pet decks being pet decks is the cause for them not being viable.

This argument is being done again and again and proven false again and again. I wonder who'll get tired first:

http://i.pbase.com/o2/25/583725/1/10...adeadhorse.gif

@rockstar: Thank you very much! I apprecieate.

@Gheizen: This is totally correct. Mental Mistep isnt causing any problems on its own, even if the decks it is played in are heavily favoured by it, in opposite to the ones it hurted the most (sounds kinda confusing, but basically, the decks where it fits the most are U-based, others still can "abuse" MM, but are definetly downgraded in front of eachother).
Hopefully they ban Brainstorm, as well as S&T and unban Earth Craft.

PS: I have not enough experience with the card "Gush" itself to make competent statements about how broken or healthy the card would be for the format without the existence of Brainstorm. Hope someone can make a competent statement here, I am pretty interested.
Thanks in advance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I am the brainwasher

@rockstar: Thank you very much! I apprecieate.

@Gheizen: This is totally correct. Mental Mistep isnt causing any problems on its own, even if the decks it is played in are heavily favoured by it, in opposite to the ones it hurted the most (sounds kinda confusing, but basically, the decks where it fits the most are U-based, others still can "abuse" MM, but are definetly downgraded in front of eachother).
Hopefully they ban Brainstorm, as well as S&T and unban Earth Craft.

PS: I have not enough experience with the card "Gush" itself to make competent statements about how broken or healthy the card would be for the format without the existence of Brainstorm. Hope someone can make a competent statement here, I am pretty interested.
Thanks in advance

---

Gush is horrible. There's no reason to not run Gush if you run islands, and there's no reason to not run Islands if there's gush in the format. Welcome to Blue.format if Gush get ever unbanned. There are still cards like Mindtwist, Tax, Craft and Vise that would probably see 0 play even if unbanned, i don't see why WotC would even consider a card that would make blue even stronger.

Mindtwist would see play if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

I think FoW should be banned. Not because it reduces power of staples like SDT, Brainstorm, AEther Vial, STP, Lackey etc. but more because of the collateral damage done to less played decks that rely on crucial utility spells to set up.

---

False analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pippin

Sounds familiar :rolleyes:

---

Color Pie doesnt matter as much in legacy as it does in standard. Legacy you can splash anything for anything, in standard that doesnt belong.

It's so funny that my signature stands true forever and I can repeat the same phrases over and over again:

Ban Brainstorm and Misstep; let Combo rape the format. I Gara-damn-te you we have the same complaints about cards like LED Zoon after. Problem is that people don't want to metagame. Goblin players still run near no warren instigators but Gang-bang Commander and dare to complain about misstep?! 2 Zoo players recently complained about Reanimator in their meta but refused to run hate maindeck. BUT ... those are the people arguing here and elsewhere that Vial/putrid Imp/Nacatl/Lackey/etc. should be handled by metagaming not the all-in-one-solution misstep!

Selective perseption or ignorance? I dunno.

Post-Survival/PRE-misstep where Aggro was well positioned against countertop and near drove it out of legacy (Countertops metagamed firespout and lavamancer btw), TES and Show&Tell where Aggros nightmare and we had the same discussion about LED and S&T being sooooo unfair to Goblins and Pet-decks.

Misstep did not kill Zoo or Aggro as Maverick shows in Europe. The reason you see so much blue in SCG's Events is pure lazyness and netdecking. Gerry T. (and others of corse) plays a deck and the next Event 20% of the field run the same. Rinse and repeat. If meerfolk, stoneblade, NO RUG and Zoo make 70+% of a meta I would not wonder if the T8 mirror that being damn blue.

My advise: Don't build decks with 8 essential One-drops w/o protection and curse the world if they won't stick. (lavamancer, Kurs Ape, nacatl, loam Lion, goblin guide, Lightning bolt, chain lightning work perfect in weenie Zoo; 4 missteps vs. 28 One-drops is fair)

My prediction:
1. banning misstep timewalks blue back to countertop, loosing vs. meerfolk/Zoo. Those Loose to combo and people cry for LED to be banned (we had that already)

2. Banning Brainstom makes blue unable to dig for certain defensive cards. With all the narrow counters in legacy (Balance, snare, misstep) a pure gambling for the right configuration. What I've learned from Vintage on the topic Brainstorm is that stack interaction aside from "I counter your spell" is removed because brainstorm is the ONLY card in legacy that let you change configuration on the stack (Ponder, preordain are sorceries and instant draw is expensive, resticted or Gush). Without Brainstorm you simply topdeck. Blue needs the right cards in the right situation while Zoo don't care what creature they draw

Quote:

---

I have not enough experience with the card "Gush" itself to make competent statements about how broken or healthy the card would be for the format without the existence of Brainstorm. Hope someone can make a competent statement here, I am pretty interested.
Thanks in advance

---

Even without brainstorm gush still says 0: counter target wasteland add UU and Draw 4 cards.

Re: format diversity, what do people think banning MMS will do for NO RUG? Its already a pretty dominant DTB and it seems to me that NO RUG (or any deck that plays GSZ and/or Hierarch) will just become more dominant, same with vial decks, specifically merfolk. In fact all the current DTBs barring blade control stand to benefit greatly from the banning. Conversely decks like TES could care less about the existence of MMS. It seems this goes against the desired result of banning MMS.

If I am mistaken great but what decks do you really think will suddenly become viable without this counterspell?

There really needs to be a word for being naive in reverse. The tenency to replace critical thought with uncritical faux-skepticism.



Also, really? You actually think combo would be what would be helped by Brainstorm being banned? Maybe you can name me a combo deck that doesn't run the card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombstalker

Even without brainstorm gush still says 0: counter target wasteland add UU and Draw 4 cards.

Re: format diversity, what do people think banning MMS will do for NO RUG? Its already a pretty dominant DTB and it seems to me that NO RUG (or any deck that plays GSZ and/or Hierarch) will just become more dominant, same with vial decks, specifically merfolk. In fact all the current DTBs barring blade control stand to benefit greatly from the banning. Conversely decks like TES could care less about the existence of MMS. It seems this goes against the desired result of banning MMS.

If I am mistaken great but what decks do you really think will suddenly become viable without this counterspell?

---

It's not that simple. The whole dynamics of the format changes. Suddenly seeing a turn 1 Nacatl on the draw on the other side of the table is actually kinda scary.

I, as a combo player, would love to see MM go. Being sure that Seize/Duress is always hitting a FoW or Spellpierce is awesome.

Merfolk's Vial doesn't get countered anymore, but in game where they don't get it they can't tap out recklessly anymore. They have to choose between attacking with Mutavault or leaving Spellpierce up, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Ban Brainstorm and Misstep; let Combo rape the format. I Gara-damn-te you we have the same complaints about cards like LED Zoon after.

---

This is more of a problem with LED than a lack of a problem with MM or Brainstorm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It's so funny that my signature stands true forever and I can repeat the same phrases over and over again:

Ban Brainstorm and Misstep; let Combo rape the format. I Gara-damn-te you we have the same complaints about cards like LED Zoon after. Problem is that people don't want to metagame. Goblin players still run near no warren instigators but Gang-bang Commander and dare to complain about misstep?! 2 Zoo players recently complained about Reanimator in their meta but refused to run hate maindeck. BUT ... those are the people arguing here and elsewhere that Vial/putrid Imp/Nacatl/Lackey/etc. should be handled by metagaming not the all-in-one-solution misstep!

Selective perseption or ignorance? I dunno.

---

This is what happens when a format that has never had a real defined meta develops one. The players of this format just don't know what to do. This is why survival got banned, there were real strategies to beat those decks but the general public was so mystified that they couldn't beat it with the exact same shit they had been playing that they demanded a ban. They got it and it un-defined the meta for a while. Now we have one again and guess what, the calls for bans are back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin

Also, really? You actually think combo would be what would be helped by Brainstorm being banned? Maybe you can name me a combo deck that doesn't run the card.

---

I can tell you combo needs brainstorm a lot less than control.

To me it's kinda important, that non-hive mind-combo is very rare today. In some way Brainstorm, Misstep and Counterbalance (won't Talk about FoW) negate the raw power of LED. Is that good or not to have cards that handle auch raw power?

People argue against Dismember in the same style, point on the phrexian mana. No one would complain about Dismember costing 1B. The question is the following: is 2 life equal a mana or even a landdrop? Snuff Out disagrees and Fastbond too. Choose your truth.

Is countering a vial, Nacatl, etc worth the cost? Doubt it if you counter a preordain but have none if you hit Vial or reanimate ... Damn I would even pay 5 life! Considering this ... shouldn't we think about the powerlevel of the recent One-drops too before judgeing their solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It's so funny that my signature stands true forever and I can repeat the same phrases over and over again:

Ban Brainstorm and Misstep; let Combo rape the format. I Gara-damn-te you we have the same complaints about cards like LED Zoon after. Problem is that people don't want to metagame. Goblin players still run near no warren instigators but Gang-bang Commander and dare to complain about misstep?! 2 Zoo players recently complained about Reanimator in their meta but refused to run hate maindeck. BUT ... those are the people arguing here and elsewhere that Vial/putrid Imp/Nacatl/Lackey/etc. should be handled by metagaming not the all-in-one-solution misstep!

Selective perseption or ignorance? I dunno.

Post-Survival/PRE-misstep where Aggro was well positioned against countertop and near drove it out of legacy (Countertops metagamed firespout and lavamancer btw), TES and Show&Tell where Aggros nightmare and we had the same discussion about LED and S&T being sooooo unfair to Goblins and Pet-decks.

Misstep did not kill Zoo or Aggro as Maverick shows in Europe. The reason you see so much blue in SCG's Events is pure lazyness and netdecking. Gerry T. (and others of corse) plays a deck and the next Event 20% of the field run the same. Rinse and repeat. If meerfolk, stoneblade, NO RUG and Zoo make 70+% of a meta I would not wonder if the T8 mirror that being damn blue.

My advise: Don't build decks with 8 essential One-drops w/o protection and curse the world if they won't stick. (lavamancer, Kurs Ape, nacatl, loam Lion, goblin guide, Lightning bolt, chain lightning work perfect in weenie Zoo; 4 missteps vs. 28 One-drops is fair)

My prediction:
1. banning misstep timewalks blue back to countertop, loosing vs. meerfolk/Zoo. Those Loose to combo and people cry for LED to be banned (we had that already)

2. Banning Brainstom makes blue unable to dig for certain defensive cards. With all the narrow counters in legacy (Balance, snare, misstep) a pure gambling for the right configuration. What I've learned from Vintage on the topic Brainstorm is that stack interaction aside from "I counter your spell" is removed because brainstorm is the ONLY card in legacy that let you change configuration on the stack (Ponder, preordain are sorceries and instant draw is expensive, resticted or Gush). Without Brainstorm you simply topdeck. Blue needs the right cards in the right situation while Zoo don't care what creature they draw

---

Brainstorm gone would neuter combo as much if not more than control. Not being able to hide bombs from discard is huge and i'd say more important for combo, especially if it's of the type "1 bomb and win" like AnT, SpiralTide and SnT.

Your point 2 is just false. Banning Brainstorm would not make blue unable to dig for defensive cards in any shape, way or form. The game would not be more of a gamble in any way. If anything, people would rely less on that Brainstorm on T1 to keep hands with one hand and shuffle back the garbage and play a bit more carefully.
I hate to repeat the obvious, but since you're deliberatingly omitting it, blue is actually the color of library manipulation and most decks already play Ponder. Then there's Preordain, and then, if you want, Portent and Opt. For decks that like to shuffle cards back like NO variants, there's See Beyond. Yes, that's actually a decent card that doesn't see play in Legacy (while does a little in Vintage) because brainstorm exist.
The second part of your point is actually ignoring that there are instant card selection spells in magic aside Brainstorm, for example Top, and there's also the false analogy that Brainstorm is the thing that make players interact. Actually, in the case you described, Brainstorm isn't interacting, it's digging for answers. Casting the dig spell before the threat spell or in response of it on the stack doesn't change the number of cards you can dig, but only force you to make your choice sooner, and this make conditional answers (like Daze and MM) worse. But stay assured the biggest changes here are that discard would become actually relevant and that blue would lose a way to ancestral in the midgame (before Jace). Topdecking or such stupid things aren't what would change with Brainstorm gone. Also, look at JTMS to see how "bad" sorcery library manipulation is and how much blue "topdeck" in those conditions.
Your assertions about Zoo are also false, since Zoo (Aggro in general) actually care a lot about its draws, if he draws creature in late game is actually usually in a bad position since control play Batterskulls and Goyfs and planeswalkers that bounce or kill creatures (the new Liliana is also an house). There's a reason burn in those decks is called "reach". And again, there's a reason Sylvan Library is one of the strongest card in Zoo or if Zoo evolved in variants like Big Zoo. Because "dumb creatures that swing" aren't actually everything Aggro is about. Your whole argument is a big generalization of ideas (Brainstorm buff blue, and as such nerf combo: false, combo is as blue as control is) people (people cry for misstep and then will cry for LED: false, people say MM isn't the right thing to ban since MM isn't the reason blue is everywhere. There are multiple reasons for this, obviously, the biggest one is probably Brainstorm, in alternative, the old Island proposition is still there), decks (Aggro decks are dumbs and don't care about what they draw: false, aggro does care as much as control, especially in the days where control have huge midgame bombs like Jace and Batterskull that seal the game extremely quickly) and to top it all, sarcastic remarks about supposedly "bad" deck builders.

Your pre-emptive attacks on everyone that don't have the same PoV as you have are also fascinating. We aren't actually debating about religion or any kind of dogma here. We're having arguments, and everyone can be in the wrong since an absolute truth doesn't exist (my argument, in case you missed it, and the argument for many beside me, is that MM isn't the culprit of Blue dominance and banning MM wouldn't actually achieve anything its detractor thinks it would achieve. Blue being able to run MM and other color not is a testament of the real problem here: the ability of blue to run conditional cards thanks to the ability to reshuffle cards back in with Brainstorm. I argue that with Brainstorm gone, MM would also see a decise decrease in play and the power relationship between archetypes would remain largely unchanged, however the relationship between colors would probably get slightly better. In particular, and i speak only for myself here, i think blue would lose a bit of its power while black and possibly green would be see the biggest benefit).
Keep your "my idea is better than yours" elsewhere along with your false analogies and with your categorization of people (i heard there's a word for that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It's so funny that my signature stands true forever and I can repeat the same phrases over and over again

---

This is clearly not the case, but you can believe in whatever you want.

In a sports comparison, you can have a tourney where Barcelona fights Real Madrid to see which is the first, and all the rest just fights for the 3rd place, or you can have a balanced scenario where a lot more teams got a chance.

My opinion is that I prefer, and Legacy has always been, the second one. Barcelona vs Real Madrid can be held at Vintage tourneys already.