All B/R update speculation.

An ideal should be the other way around. Blue should be a support color to the other 4. Take a deck, add blue, gain consistency at the cost of now being a 2 color deck. Losing to a blue permanent not named Vizzerdrix is what is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

It isn't just the "best", it's virtually the only color that matters in Magic. The other 4 colors are nothing more than blue's support team and can rarely stand on their own. This is an issue when competition is all being funnelled into one color slice; card overlap often times will lead to strategy overlap which creates a bland environment.

---

But this is not always the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

But this is not always the case.

---

You're right, not always. But if strategy overlap occurs frequently, even if not always, then it's still an issue that should be addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

It isn't just the "best", it's virtually the only color that matters in Magic. The other 4 colors are nothing more than blue's support team and can rarely stand on their own. This is an issue when competition is all being funnelled into one color slice; card overlap often times will lead to strategy overlap which creates a bland environment.

---

Precisely.

As others posted, the game is made of cards. Blue manipulates cards more fundamentally than any color; it goes beyond 'Bolt your Pridemage' interactions. It draws cards, it filters cards, it subverts costs, it counters cards. Giving that color access to even "just playable" aggro or combo puts those cards ahead on the merit of its insanely deep and potent infrastructure for working with 'cards'.

sent from phone, don't be a dick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

Giving that color access to even "just playable" aggro or combo puts those cards ahead on the merit of its insanely deep and potent infrastructure for working with 'cards'.

---

This is the recent development that should be targeted for extermination. Both in cards and design philosophy. Nuke it from orbit, I say. Blue's in his heaven, all's right with the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

You're right, not always. But if strategy overlap occurs frequently, even if not always, then it's still an issue that should be addressed.

---

But it's not a result of color. This you can admit.

Getting a balanced distribution of colors is a side effect of banning key cards that break the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

But it's not a result of color. This you can admit.

Getting a balanced distribution of colors is a side effect of banning key cards that break the format.

---

If a particular color is the sole owner of the dominant strategy(s), then yes, the imbalance is as a result of color.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

If a particular color is the sole owner of the dominant strategy(s), then yes, the imbalance is as a result of color.

---

The imbalance is not the result of a color. Blue isn't overpowered because it's blue. Blue gets overpowered when you print blue flying Wild Nacatls or mini-Progenitus. Blue being overpowered has nothing to do with it's RGB color code.

Focusing on colors is arbitrary and pointless (and racist). The only thing that should be focused on is the individual cards that warp the format.

I haven't seen a single argument for keeping brainstorm that couldn't be applied to ancestral recall if it were legal.

"It's a pillar of the format"
"Just b/c everyone plays blue doesn't mean it should be banned"
"It doesn't win the game on it's own"
"56 card decks are fine, we play lands don't we?"
"I like playing ancestral, go play modern"
"People play legacy so they can play recall" (bs)

And for each person that would "quit" if brainstorm were banned, another would be able to buy in. Demand isn't going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragoFireheart

The imbalance is not the result of a color. Blue isn't overpowered because it's blue. Blue gets overpowered when you print blue flying Wild Nacatls or mini-Progenitus. Blue being overpowered has nothing to do with it's RGB color code.

Focusing on colors is arbitrary and pointless (and racist). The only thing that should be focused on is the individual cards that warp the format.

---

In the context of Magic, colors serve as keywords for certain traits and characteristics. When talking about colors within this context, yes, imbalances occur due to what each color represents and contributes to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

In the context of Magic, colors serve as keywords for certain traits and characteristics. When talking about colors within this context, yes, imbalances occur due to what each color represents and contributes to the game.

---

If this is your objection, then I see no way of making you happy. Library manipulation and outright card drawing are two of the most powerful color-defined abilities in the game, and blue cards (along with Top and a whopping two green cards) are what do them well. Since blue also gets counter magic, another high powered ability, it's going to be the best color. Since it seems that no one will be happy without bannings, what's wrong with hitting TNN and Delver and leaving Brainstorm alone? I think that a Brainstorm ban won't move the needle on what ails Legacy, but taking blue's efficient, aggressive creatures will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btm10

If this is your objection, then I see no way of making you happy. Library manipulation and outright card drawing are two of the most powerful color-defined abilities in the game, and blue cards (along with Top and a whopping two green cards) are what do them well. Since blue also gets counter magic, another high powered ability, it's going to be the best color. Since it seems that no one will be happy without bannings, what's wrong with hitting TNN and Delver and leaving Brainstorm alone? I think that a Brainstorm ban won't move the needle on what ails Legacy, but taking blue's efficient, aggressive creatures will.

---

If you've read this thread the last month or two, you'd know that I'm the #1 supporter of banning TNN. Also, my conversation with Drago was in regard to card/strategy/color overlap, not whether Brainstorm/TNN/Delver/S&T are too powerful/banworthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btm10

If this is your objection, then I see no way of making you happy. Library manipulation and outright card drawing are two of the most powerful color-defined abilities in the game, and blue cards (along with Top and a whopping two green cards) are what do them well. Since blue also gets counter magic, another high powered ability, it's going to be the best color. Since it seems that no one will be happy without bannings, what's wrong with hitting TNN and Delver and leaving Brainstorm alone? I think that a Brainstorm ban won't move the needle on what ails Legacy, but taking blue's efficient, aggressive creatures will.

---

I disagree. It's not the abilities it's the power level of the cards printed.

For example -
B - Instant - target player discards 3 cards at random
R - Instant - 7 damage to target creatures or player
G - Creatures - 5/5 hexproof haste trample
WW1 - Creature - 3/1 protection from a player (oh, wait....)

I can make good cards with strong color identities too. Problem is wizards love affair with blue. Any ability can be high powered. Drawing and countering is just what they have decided to push/horribly misevaluated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arsenal

In the context of Magic, colors serve as keywords for certain traits and characteristics. When talking about colors within this context, yes, imbalances occur due to what each color represents and contributes to the game.

---

This is totally it, but not because of blue's high quality card & stack interaction. That is what blue represents and contributes to the game. Giving it that and something else, say white and green's penance for cheap, efficient creatures, and you have problems.

Then to world rallies to remove the historic purpose of blue, but let them keep the new, off color additions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

I disagree. It's not the abilities it's the power level of the cards printed.

For example -
B - Instant - target player discards 3 cards at random
R - Instant - 7 damage to target creatures or player
G - Creatures - 5/5 hexproof haste trample
WW1 - Creature - 3/1 protection from a player (oh, wait....)

I can make good cards with strong color identities too. Problem is wizards love affair with blue. Any ability can be high powered. Drawing and countering is just what they have decided to push/horribly misevaluated.

---

Maybe because marketing has figured out most players like blue. That's a pretty good reason to keep printing really good blue cards.

Mainly the problem I have found is that to compensate for good blue cards, Wizards tries to print blue hosers instead of cards that could be good on its own. See Spirit of the Labrynth. They could have made a more proactive card instead of such a reactive card.

Black and Red really need a push in Legacy, and there's tons of stuff you could do.

-Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSCK

Maybe because marketing has figured out most players like blue. That's a pretty good reason to keep printing really good blue cards.

---

Players like blue because it is the competitive color and players like to win. If Wizards gave other colors comparatively powerful cards too, then players would likely gravitate towards those colors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSCK

Maybe because marketing has figured out most players like blue. That's a pretty good reason to keep printing really good blue cards.

---

I bet you're right. They probably have a ton of survey data. Big creatures --> good, drawing cards --> good, land destruction --> bad, etc, etc.

Edit - There was an unofficial poll from a few days ago which asked players their favorite color. I think blue was around 35% if I'm remembering correctly. that sounds about right. It's a lot closer to 35% than to 90%.

The fact that if you want to brew, a competitive deck, you start with 4 brainstorms sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

I bet you're right. They probably have a ton of survey data. Big creatures --> good, drawing cards --> good, land destruction --> bad, etc, etc.

---

It does suck that they decided to stop printing good LD stuff after Urza Block. After my initial 120 WRG deck with Stangg and Johan and all of the CoP I could get, LD was my first, 60 card deck. good old days....

Countering Spells:?::LD:bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by testing32

I haven't seen a single argument for keeping brainstorm that couldn't be applied to ancestral recall if it were legal.

"It's a pillar of the format"
"Just b/c everyone plays blue doesn't mean it should be banned"
"It doesn't win the game on it's own"
"56 card decks are fine, we play lands don't we?"
"I like playing ancestral, go play modern"
"People play legacy so they can play recall" (bs)

And for each person that would "quit" if brainstorm were banned, another would be able to buy in. Demand isn't going anywhere.

---

You are missing the most important argument. Legacy is fun, diverse and not broken. If brainstorm would be recall that would certainly not be the case!