All B/R update speculation.

Why are we talking about Divine Intervention? It's Dark Depths with the exceptions of needing Hexmage/Hex Parasite, way more counterable pieces, and it draws the game instead of winning. Much closer to Depths than Shahrazad by my estimation. The total number of pieces is the relevant comparison, Shahrazad is a 1-card combo whose only build-around cost is white mana - the point of the card in paper events would be to win game 1, then time out the match.

@MaximumC there is no evidence to support the claim that Divine Intervention would be banned at :w::w: cost - it still requires build-around. Look at the inverse 6 colorless mana discount scenario: Counterbalance versus Decree of Silence. Certainly Counterbalance is a ridiculously higher ceiling than :u::u: enchantment that says "counter opponent's next 3 spells" - but people would [mistakenly] think 6-dicounted Decree is more oppressive than Counterbalance, it would be banned, and Counterbalance would remain unbanned. Why? One of those requires build-around.

If Divine Intervention vs Shahrazad is really worth talking about a huge poing against the latter is the reconstruction of the game, you aren't just wasting time playing an extra match, you then have to rewind back to the game state as Shahrazad was casted, this is already time consuming if no information are hidden, but if players have cards in hand and/or know the position of certain cards in the deck you are forced to call a third person to track them as shahrazad resolves, this could potentially mean that a judge has to come, list both hands and all the cards in a determinate position in the decks (cards on the bottom due to a terminus, card on top after a cantrip, potentially the entire deck can be in a precise order or you can end up with a bunch of really boring to track patterns like a 5 creature terminus into a cascade into another terminus) and then hold those information until the subgame ends, and shahrazade decks plans to cast the card as many times as possible and each time the process must be done again.

In a tournament scenario this could lead to disaster is just a bunch of people chose to pick this strategy, the card may look like just a silly cool one with no use like goblin game, but shahrazad has really the potential to make the cut in control decks as a tool to basicly just have to win game 1 against any slowish opponent.

In a time waste scale from 1 to 10 shahrazad is by far the 10 , no card comes close, divine intervention has the potential to stall the game but is probably on a worldgorger loop level, with the great "malus" to be simply unplayable in any legit tournament deck, sensei's divining top is not even close to be as time consuming as those card if used as intented.

I would argue that the main problem with top isnt time consumption, is just the card being broken and really obnoxious to play against in many ways.

Sucks that this game cant have fixes like hearthstone does, i think that many legacy staples could get nerfed into a more healty state, im not pro bans, but i see top being a more streamlined card with the tap effect removed for example, i see the game getting better with a bunch of those tweeks, as most legacy cards are in fact design flaws in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctalor

I think that many legacy staples could get nerfed into a more healty state...

---

Not everybody would agree that nerfing Legacy staples would be a good thing. Every deck that's unfair, plus half the fair decks, are running something that would be OP in any format besides Vintage (and in some cases OP in Vintage too). That's part of Legacy's charm and how it stays healthy.

There are a few cards I think would be better with a tweak or two, but the point of eternal formats is you get to play with the mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noctalor

If Divine Intervention vs Shahrazad is really worth talking about a huge poing against the latter is the reconstruction of the game, you aren't just wasting time playing an extra match, you then have to rewind back to the game state as Shahrazad was casted, this is already time consuming if no information are hidden, but if players have cards in hand and/or know the position of certain cards in the deck you are forced to call a third person to track them as shahrazad resolves, this could potentially mean that a judge has to come, list both hands and all the cards in a determinate position in the decks (cards on the bottom due to a terminus, card on top after a cantrip, potentially the entire deck can be in a precise order or you can end up with a bunch of really boring to track patterns like a 5 creature terminus into a cascade into another terminus) and then hold those information until the subgame ends, and shahrazade decks plans to cast the card as many times as possible and each time the process must be done again.

---

That's not how Shahrazad works: "Players play a MAGIC subgame, using their libraries as their decks."
=> you just set aside and keep both hands, grave, gamestate and use your libraries to play. It can be a space problem, but probably manageable.

On the Shahrazad issues in tournaments:
- power level: In WR burn, the card would be very brutal
- time issues: a lot of draws, and how do you manage the 5 additional turns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

Isn't lich's mirror that card?

---

Not really. Actually resetting the game will sweep the opponent's board, brink back exiled cards, and allows for new mulligans. It also makes sideboard cards more important.

Is this the end of the road for Miracles?

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/ban-miracles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twndomn

Is this the end of the road for Miracles?

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/ban-miracles

---

Unlikely. This has come up before. There was the "Ban Top" "Don't Ban Top" thing they did before too. Basily, does it get views? Yes? That's why its on the site. Will it have an impact? I can not remember the last time and article had an impact on the Legacy ban list. Not since 09 when I came back that is for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Unlikely. This has come up before. There was the "Ban Top" "Don't Ban Top" thing they did before too. Basily, does it get views? Yes? That's why its on the site. Will it have an impact? I can not remember the last time and article had an impact on the Legacy ban list. Not since 09 when I came back that is for sure.

---

Not just that, but WotC has to let traditional U/W control be good in SOME format, doesn't it?

Most likely nothing gets banned, which I wouldn't really mind. If they do ban something, hopefully it's Terminus or Mentor. Both of those cards let Miracles do things control decks probably shouldn't be able to do, but aren't integral to its existence.

I don't really want them to touch Top or Counterbalance. They're obnoxious cards, but they define the deck and make it viable. If they get banned, Miracles becomes, what, Stoneblade? Also, it'd be shitty if all of us Quinn/Painter/12-Post/etc players got hit by a Top ban :rolleyes:.

I hope they ban terminus... Supreme Verdict is a good card that actually used to be played as a 1-of in miracles decks. A counterbalance ban would kill the deck because playing traditional draw-go control in legacy will lead to failure(I know this because I have tried it before).

Terminus is at best a good card, the power level is laughable if you compared it to a card that is actually ban-worthy like: Yawgmoth's Will. This is not modern, we don't ban cards merely for being good - please make points that illustrate a quality of life (like Goblin Recruiter) or power level problem.

The two cards at the top of the list, based on power level, are SDT and Counterbalance. There is also a quality of life issue of having people's time wasted; while SDT enables time-wasting, it is Counterbalance which incentivizes >1 spin between draw steps.

What is truly insidious about the 'ban Terminus' arguments is that they use "x beats Counterbalance, so it's ok" and fail to apply that same logic to Terminus. Beyond that logical fallacy, you don't even need to run creatures to be top tier in legacy...on the flip side it is not possible to have a game actions-only deck be top tier in legacy. Now it's one thing be upset about a card like Terminus to the point of being unreasonable, but it's quite another to tell everyone who plays combo and/or a responsible mana curve to play magic like you do (grindy, fair, x-for-y removal) in order to make Counterbalance ok.

There are multiple ways to play legacy competitively, if your fix is "play magic/decks like I do" then at least own up to the fact that Miracles (specifically Counterbalance) is diversity-killing and you're casting your vote for less diversity in the format. To be clear, being anti-diversity in legacy is a valid viewpoint - just be sure to pair coherent logic with that controversial stance.

By completely getting rid of a deck you are going to make tons of people mad. Just look at how mad everyone was when Twin got banned in modern. All those people who have played miracles actively for years are going to be really pissed that it doesn't exist anymore. Also Miracles is the only blue control deck that exists in legacy right now and by banning it completely the diversity of the format will take a hit. Instead we need to weaken the deck so it is still present and viable but isn't too powerful and popular. There is not a problem with banning Terminus, I don't care if its less powerful as Yawgmoth's Will, 1 mana instant speed board wipes are so much better than the standard 4 mana sorcery speed board wipes that it isn't even funny. And this is irrelevant because the goal of a ban list is to make a format enjoyable, not to include only iconic powerhouse cards.

Quote:

---

Also Miracles is the only blue control deck that exists in legacy right now and by banning it completely the diversity of the format will take a hit.

---

Ban Top, unban Drain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefringthing

Ban Top, unban Drain.

---

Top is used in many legacy decks that are already tier 2 and shooting top will make them even worse and therefore reduce diversity in the format
Ban counterbalance unban drain is a better idea

Edit: although both these ideas have a high chance of killing control in legacy... 2 mana counterspells are inefficient in legacy
the safest route to balancing Miracles is just to ban terminus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

By completely getting rid of a deck you are going to make tons of people mad. Just look at how mad everyone was when Twin got banned in modern. All those people who have played miracles actively for years are going to be really pissed that it doesn't exist anymore. Also Miracles is the only blue control deck that exists in legacy right now and by banning it completely the diversity of the format will take a hit. Instead we need to weaken the deck so it is still present and viable but isn't too powerful and popular. There is not a problem with banning Terminus, I don't care if its less powerful as Yawgmoth's Will, 1 mana instant speed board wipes are so much better than the standard 4 mana sorcery speed board wipes that it isn't even funny. And this is irrelevant because the goal of a ban list is to make a format enjoyable, not to include only iconic powerhouse cards.

---

Ok so right there, modern mentality. This isn't modern.

You're skipping ahead into the area of questions like:
-when did it become unreasonable to lose a card to counter a spell
-do we really want legacy to turn into a game where I cast x and then cast y, and because of that I won (if that's the case, unban Time Vault, at least a player can concede to this)

We don't play eternal magic to ban/restrict cards for being good in-game, you need a metric that distances the conclusion from subjectively disliking a card - otherwise we're just discussing personal feelings, which by design is only valid to an audience of one.

Bans don't exist to weaken decks here, we didn't ban DTT to weaken Omnitell nor did we ban Treasure Cruise to weaken UR/RUG Delver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Ok so right there, modern mentality. This isn't modern.

You're skipping ahead into the area of questions like:
-when did it become unreasonable to lose a card to counter a spell
-do we really want legacy to turn into a game where I cast x and then cast y, and because of that I won (if that's the case, unban Time Vault, at least a player can concede to this)

We don't play eternal magic to ban/restrict cards for being good in-game, you need a metric that distances the conclusion from subjectively disliking a card - otherwise we're just discussing personal feelings, which by design is only valid to an audience of one.

Bans don't exist to weaken decks here, we didn't ban DTT to weaken Omnitell nor did we ban Treasure Cruise to weaken UR/RUG Delver.

---

maybe im just stupid but i have no idea what this "-when did it become unreasonable to lose a card to counter a spell" has to do with anything we are discussing right now.

"-do we really want legacy to turn into a game where I cast x and then cast y, and because of that I won (if that's the case, unban Time Vault, at least a player can concede to this)" this is an EXTREME exaggeration... unlike other combos SDT+CB does not win you the game... there is a bunch of removal that destroys CB(and of course counterspells that counter it and hand disruption but that is the case for every combo) and this combo does not deal with permanents already in play when the combo was assembled nor does it deal with 3+ cmc cards slipping past the lock(not to mention the occasional 2cmc).

"Bans don't exist to weaken decks here" ??? then why do bans exist? because a card is played too much(which is an idiotic reason and Mental Misstep shouldn't have been banned in my opinion)? i think bans exist to make a format more enjoyable to play which means increasing diversity which can only be done by bans and unbans(and WotC printing cards for legacy but this would be a HORRIBLE idea because power creep would kill the game too quickly)

I have a nasty feeling that a stupid banning is coming due to miracle's success. They banned survival for the same dominance.

However, the right course of action is to unban cards to give other decks tools. I wish Wotc would take this philosophy. They should unban Earthcraft and Survival.

Notice, how Worldgorger dragon and black vise have not even made an appearance. Wotc is too conservative.

I know this is an internet forum, but for the love of god, please use appropriate capitalization and punctuation. Go on whatever pot-banging, circle jerking rant your little heart desires, but for fuck's sake, at least pay some respect to the conventions of written language.

EDIT: Probably should have posted this in the drunk thread. Move along.

Agree with the sentiment, but in the future please just report problematic posts rather than posting about them yourself. Thanks. -zilla

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

maybe im just stupid but i have no idea what this "-when did it become unreasonable to lose a card to counter a spell" has to do with anything we are discussing right now. (1)

"-do we really want legacy to turn into a game where I cast x and then cast y, and because of that I won (if that's the case, unban Time Vault, at least a player can concede to this)" this is an EXTREME exaggeration... unlike other combos SDT+CB does not win you the game... there is a bunch of removal that destroys CB(and of course counterspells that counter it and hand disruption but that is the case for every combo) and this combo does not deal with permanents already in play when the combo was assembled nor does it deal with 3+ cmc cards slipping past the lock(not to mention the occasional 2cmc). (2)

"Bans don't exist to weaken decks here" ??? then why do bans exist? because a card is played too much(which is an idiotic reason and Mental Misstep shouldn't have been banned in my opinion)? i think bans exist to make a format more enjoyable to play which means increasing diversity...(3)

---

1- you are the one who dredged up the myth about 'control can only exist with the card Counterbalance'
2- the Time Vault comparison is not that extreme to a huge segment of the legacy community that plays combo and/or responsible mana curves. Simply because a fair, removal-based deck isn't as profoundly affected doesn't invalidate the problem. If we use your logic, I can flippantly tell you to play ANT and Terminus won't be a problem - in short you aren't going to prove a point by telling people to play legacy like you do.
3- you immediately moved to talk about increasing diversity in legacy when the point you just made in your last paragraph was to effectively tell people to play fair decks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

1- you are the one who dredged up the myth about 'control can only exist with the card Counterbalance'
2- the Time Vault comparison is not that extreme to a huge segment of the legacy community that plays combo and/or responsible mana curves. Simply because a fair, removal-based deck isn't as profoundly affected doesn't invalidate the problem. If we use your logic, I can flippantly tell you to play ANT and Terminus won't be a problem - in short you aren't going to prove a point by telling people to play legacy like you do.
3- you immediately moved to talk about increasing diversity in legacy when the point you just made in your last paragraph was to effectively tell people to play fair decks.

---

1. Saying that FoW is good in this format does not mean that control should now exist if CB or SDT are banned.

2. Even if CB+SDT did cause your opponent to concede that would not be a reason for it to be banned.

3. If an overly popular deck is banned from a format, you will increase the diversity of that format and the point of a ban is to increase diversity because what almost every player wants out of a format is diversity in decks and archetypes.

@LegacyIsAnEternalFormat you started out with an unsubstantiated post about banning Terminus, I point out the logical failings that generally accompany that opinion. Sure enough you walked right into it demonstrating the incoherence and logical inconsistencies behind banning Terminus. Your argument had fatal flaws from the onset that can't be reasoned with. You continue to go down the rabbit hole talking about things that are hardly germane and are often self-repudiating.

Despite failing to make a logical argument and failing to define what banned cards should have in common, your common theme is that legacy bannings should be more like modern - even though the whole point of legacy and vintage is to play magic with as much of the catalog as is healthily possible. Advocating turning legacy into modern is fine; it won't win you a lot of support here, but no one will tell you that can't be your opinion. It is borderline trolling though to 'champion the cause of diversity' in legacy by telling everyone card x is ok because a fair deck can answer it with 1-for-1 removal. You don't have to like playing with or against unfair decks, but you're still going to have to take into account their right to approach the format in their way. I have to imagine you'd be screaming bloody murder if every time you said 'ban Terminus' people told you to just play blue (Stifle, Clique, counterspell it)... Have the common courtesy to return the favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sjmcc13

The people running the company now are not the people who were running it when the game started.


That helps as well... Plus while MtG is not the best game, or even the best run game, it is the first majorly successful one, and that helps as most games end up failing due to not achieving a critical # of players which MtG achieved years ago.
Not even close to true. The majority of the player base has demonstrated time and again that they understand nothing about power level. plus this often ends up being more skill vs luck, as decks that reward player skill often get pegged as more powerful when in the hands of more competent players.
Yes, because for the umpteenth time this selection would not be logical but emotional, and all it takes for someone to form an emotional dislike for a card that their deck is weak against is for them to play against it semi-regularly. When you add in that most of the player base (remember for this system you are proposing the voting would not be dominated by the competitive players who are a minority but the casuals who are a vast majority) are actually playing bad decks, this ends up being that they lose to most of the top decks. and they vote to ban the cards that the top decks use.
I can all but guarantee that if this was implemented BS, FoW, Tendrils, SnT, Terminus, Counterbalance, etc would all be banned quickly because the majority of the player base has negative emotional connections to those cards.
Allot of the time when someone complains a deck it boring to play against it is not the deck that is boring to play against, it is the player not knowing how to change their game to play against that deck.
Some of the best games I ever played, and most satisfying victories were against decks that the majority would consider boring, partly because I was able to adapt my strategy to face that deck, and it actually ended up being an interactive match.
There is also the fact that there is a large segment of the player base who basically only play cards on their turn and have little to no attention, this causes ANY deck that takes turns that take more then 2-3 mins to be labeled as slow and boring, which under you desired view would cause any deck that requires you to think or even practice with it get banned bacause it takes to much time.

There is one player in my local community who I have heard several times complain about how deck X is a problem because it takes to long, and almost every time it was really that deck being played by people who do not know how to play it that was the problem. One of the decks he complained about taking forever to win was UR modern storm, which on MODO I have timed myself in single player mode and most games and I can normally goldfish the entire game (not just the storm turn) in in 5-6 min, including all the delays from stacking triggers. Oh and I have a bad internet connection that slows me down as well.

though the blatantly problem with letting cards be banned due to people finding them boring to play against is that for the majority of players that list includes basically every combo and control deck, so if you ban based on this criteria you end up with those 2 categories of play disappearing from the game, but they are NEEDED for a healthy and diverse metagame which is the biggest advantage Legacy has over Standard and Modern.

As well allot of the cards that would be banned for "being boring to play against" actually serve a purpose in the health of metagame keeping other strategies and combos in check, so once they have been banned the resulting metagame ends up with more broken decks emerging that then have to be banned for the health of the game. leading to the B&R lists going from a minimal curated list we have now to a bloated slapped together mess like in Yu-Gi-Oh.

It would end up being that whenever a vote was set, whatever deck is currently winning the most is likely going to get a card banned, and nothing ever coming off the list.
WE DO UNDERSTAND IT, YOU ARE JUST OBVIOUSLY WRONG FOR REASONS THAT HAVE PROBABLY BEEN MENTIONED AD NAUSEAM BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING

---

Respect!

It seems that the one crying for a ban should just play modern.

You shouldn't have to worry about your legacy problems.
I don't face any of the popular decks so I can play what I want and be confident enough that I will be in the tops.

@Sidney Apparently a majority who polled in my poll think that Miracles should be weakened by a ban and statistics prove this.

@Fox If you think CB+SDT limits diversity in the format because it pushes out 1-2cmc spells I don't know what to say except to ask you if you even play legacy. The reason storm isn't tier 1 is not because of Miracles it is because of Chalice decks being popular right now. So banning CB will increase diversity except not as much as banning Terminus will because banning terminus will not get rid of the only control deck we have in legacy right now. The fact that you don't like playing against CB+SDT is not a reason for a deck to get banned because if it was we would have a much longer ban list than we do now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

@Sidney Apparently a majority who polled in my poll think that Miracles should be weakened by a ban and statistics prove this.

---

Because a poll on the internet is all you need to prove a point. A poll on the internet you know a mod played with and is unreliable even more so....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

@Sidney Apparently a majority who polled in my poll think that Miracles should be weakened by a ban and statistics prove this.

---

That is only one side of the medal. I believe you're forgetting that similar number of people expressed the opinion that they want to be more like Jace the planeswalker so.. you know.. take that into your arguments as well. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Because a poll on the internet is all you need to prove a point. A poll on the internet you know a mod played with and is unreliable even more so....

---

Did you mess with the votes on my poll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

Did you mess with the votes on my poll?

---

Does it matter? What would it change, prove or disprove? I will say this much, I turned off being able to see who voted for what for a reson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Does it matter? What would it change, prove or disprove? I will say this much, I turned off being able to see who voted for what for a reson.

---

I want to know how legitimate the poll results are.. So did you change up the numbers or not?
Also why would you turn off the username visibility on my poll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

@Fox If you think CB+SDT limits diversity in the format because it pushes out 1-2cmc spells I don't know what to say except to ask you if you even play legacy. The reason storm isn't tier 1 is not because of Miracles it is because of Chalice decks being popular right now. So banning CB will increase diversity except not as much as banning Terminus will because banning terminus will not get rid of the only control deck we have in legacy right now. The fact that you don't like playing against CB+SDT is not a reason for a deck to get banned because if it was we would have a much longer ban list than we do now.

---

I have actually stayed away from making an emotional appeal to ban Counterbalance, focusing on out-of-game problems the card creates including quality of life (time-wasting), power level, and diversity-killing grounds. You can agree or disagree with my points, but you will at all points understand the metric used when I discuss what makes cards ban-worthy. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims that card x should be banned because [silently] it's good against deck y; nor am I making the ludicrous claim that Counterbalance is the only card that can make a control deck effective. I also don't resort to saying "don't play creatures; see, Terminus is fine" which is as close-minded as telling an unfair deck to play 1-for-1 removal like a fair deck does.

You can't possibly take yourself seriously if you say "x kills CB, so CB is fine" and not also say "playing x kills Terminus, so Terminus is fine." To translate that is "play a fair deck, CB is fine" and "play blue [or no-creature combo], Terminus is fine."

In legacy/vintage we do not approach the banlist discussions by looking at one specific deck and look to specifically doctor the amount of top 8s it generates. That is merely a tool to show something isn't right; there are certain things people shouldn't have to put up with, and that has little to do with reading the text of a card in game and carrying it out. Following your logic DTT got banned because Omnitell was winning to much; in reality it was banned because discard stopped working (except in the case of Pyro+Gitaxian+Cabal+DTT decks). Often times you'll see top 8 overperformance and bans go hand in hand, but it's the why that's important - when you stop caring about making a case for 'why' people get ticked off (see also Lodestone Golem).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

I don't know what to say except to ask you if you even play legacy.

---

Do you? Honestly, reviewing your posting history, there isn't much evidence to suggest you've played a single game of Legacy in your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I have actually stayed away from making an emotional appeal to ban Counterbalance, focusing on out-of-game problems the card creates including quality of life (time-wasting), power level, and diversity-killing grounds. You can agree or disagree with my points, but you will at all points understand the metric used when I discuss what makes cards ban-worthy. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims that card x should be banned because [silently] it's good against deck y; nor am I making the ludicrous claim that Counterbalance is the only card that can make a control deck effective. I also don't resort to saying "don't play creatures; see, Terminus is fine" which is as close-minded as telling an unfair deck to play 1-for-1 removal like a fair deck does.

You can't possibly take yourself seriously if you say "x kills CB, so CB is fine" and not also say "playing x kills Terminus, so Terminus is fine." To translate that is "play a fair deck, CB is fine" and "play blue [or no-creature combo], Terminus is fine."

In legacy/vintage we do not approach the banlist discussions by looking at one specific deck and look to specifically doctor the amount of top 8s it generates. That is merely a tool to show something isn't right; there are certain things people shouldn't have to put up with, and that has little to do with reading the text of a card in game and carrying it out. Following your logic DTT got banned because Omnitell was winning to much; in reality it was banned because discard stopped working (except in the case of Pyro+Gitaxian+Cabal+DTT decks). Often times you'll see top 8 overperformance and bans go hand in hand, but it's the why that's important - when you stop caring about making a case for 'why' people get ticked off (see also Lodestone Golem).

---

"power level"- no one cares what the power level of CBplusSDT is we are talking about banning miracles to increase diversity not the power level of certain combos you can assemble. I can tell you that the PainterStone decks of legacy run a much more powerful combo and no one is talking about that deck getting banned... Will banning CB increase diversity more than banning Terminus? That should be the question.

"diversity-killing" - banning CB will kill an entire deck, while banning Terminus will weaken the deck into being just another of those decks you can play if you like playing that type of deck. In your whole post I see a bunch of words but nothing that addresses which ban is better for diversity.


"what makes cards ban-worthy." what makes cards banworthy is whether or not they push a certain deck too far so that deck becomes too dominant as we see miracles is right now and that this card which pushes a deck too far is the best card to ban to weaken the deck that is too dominant so to increase the diversity of the format that the deck is played in.

"card x should be banned because [silently] it's good against deck y" I'm not making this point either... The reason I want Terminus banned is because I believe it is the right card to ban so Miracles has its power level adjusted so it isn't too powerful or too weak. If you have an idea of a better card that achieves this goal Id be glad to hear it but CB isn't that.

"Counterbalance is the only card that can make a control deck effective" This is true, a true control deck needs to be able to counter a majority of cards their opponent plays and Counterbalance is how Miracles does this. You can't just play 4counterspell 4FoW as your counter spells for a control deck and expect to win games in legacy.

"telling an unfair deck to play 1-for-1 removal like a fair deck does." I said this in my list of ways of dealing with miracles a while ago and you are using it as an Ad Hominem against me saying that I am so stupid as to suggest this.

"discard stopped working" this makes sense as an argument to ban a card if the fact that discard stopped working made a certain deck bad... while CB+SDT does make 1-2cmc spells bad, all we see in legacy is still 1-2cmc spells so this does not apply to Miracles

Overall your post was a bunch of unexplained reasoning, Ad Hominem fallacies, and totally unrelated comments,











Edit: @skipjack what exactly makes you think I don't play legacy?

I'll answer that post more completely tomorrow, but vintage/legacy is not about arbitrarily deciding which decks 'belong' in the meta game and at what strength - again that's a modern thing. The best decks will rise to the top, and cards that deserve to be banned based on their power level/other relevant qualifiers will be. No deck is entitled to protectionism - this isn't modern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

@skipjack what exactly makes you think I don't play legacy?

---

Here's what I've noted:

• The only decklist you've posted is for BW 8Rack. While I haven't tested your deck, it seems only partially optimized and includes The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, which is too expensive in paper to justify purchasing for 8Rack alone, leading me to believe one of the following is true: 1) you merely theory-crafted the list, 2) you also play Lands, or 3) you play MTGO. Based on your comments regarding MTGO, I don't think you'd be willing to invest the value of your deck online, so I ruled out (3). You also haven't really struck me as a Lands player, so I ruled out (2) even though I could be wrong. This leaves (1) as the best option, although I'll admit there are a few fringe possibilities I'm not taking into consideration.
• Your contributions to actual deck discussions are minimal and tend to just be questions regarding the viability of certain cards. There's nothing wrong with sourcing opinions, but the lack of follow-up indicates you probably don't play the decks in question and instead just want to foster card discussions.
• You've never reported personal testing/match/tournament results.
• The vast majority of your posts are in relation to the B&R List, with many longtime players vehemently disagreeing with you.
• You've expressed controversial opinions on how to fix Legacy/MtG which I wouldn't expect any entrenched player to share.
• You've only been a member of The Source since February 2016 and I doubt you're on anything other than your first account here.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you're new to the format, you've been following Legacy format coverage and discussions for a little while, and the closest you've gotten to actually playing Legacy is testing on Cockatrice/XMage.

Mind you, I could be completely off my rocker, but you really haven't done a good job of painting yourself as an experienced Legacy player. While I don't think your opinions are completely invalid, it's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem to have any real qualifications to back them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skipjack

You also haven't really struck me as a Lands player

---

What? Do we like give off a smell or something? Do you have a secret "Lands Sense" where you can pick us out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

What? Do we like give off a smell or something? Do you have a secret "Lands Sense" where you can pick us out?

---

Do not make fun of lands masters, they've spent many years mastering the punishing fire technique in the secret loam monastery. Do not mistake them with the miracles masters, eternal rivals, they won't like it.

Inviato dal mio LG-D605 utilizzando Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spam

Do not make fun of lands masters, they've spent many years mastering the punishing fire technique in the secret loam monastery. Do not mistake them with the miracles masters, eternal rivals, they won't like it.

---

Which one of my two quotes do I drop for this.... Choices, difficult choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skipjack

Here's what I've noted:

• The only decklist you've posted is for BW 8Rack. While I haven't tested your deck, it seems only partially optimized and includes The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, which is too expensive in paper to justify purchasing for 8Rack alone, leading me to believe one of the following is true: 1) you merely theory-crafted the list, 2) you also play Lands, or 3) you play MTGO. Based on your comments regarding MTGO, I don't think you'd be willing to invest the value of your deck online, so I ruled out (3). You also haven't really struck me as a Lands player, so I ruled out (2) even though I could be wrong. This leaves (1) as the best option, although I'll admit there are a few fringe possibilities I'm not taking into consideration.
• Your contributions to actual deck discussions are minimal and tend to just be questions regarding the viability of certain cards. There's nothing wrong with sourcing opinions, but the lack of follow-up indicates you probably don't play the decks in question and instead just want to foster card discussions.
• You've never reported personal testing/match/tournament results.
• The vast majority of your posts are in relation to the B&R List, with many longtime players vehemently disagreeing with you.
• You've expressed controversial opinions on how to fix Legacy/MtG which I wouldn't expect any entrenched player to share.
• You've only been a member of The Source since February 2016 and I doubt you're on anything other than your first account here.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you're new to the format, you've been following Legacy format coverage and discussions for a little while, and the closest you've gotten to actually playing Legacy is testing on Cockatrice/XMage.

Mind you, I could be completely off my rocker, but you really haven't done a good job of painting yourself as an experienced Legacy player. While I don't think your opinions are completely invalid, it's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem to have any real qualifications to back them up.

---

The BW 8Rack deck I played on Cockatrice only...

I actually do play legacy in real life and I have been playing Legacy since Worldwake.

I play JUND.(The only legacy deck I have ever owned and one that I have mastered throughtout the years)

In Modern I play Living End and Jund

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

What? Do we like give off a smell or something? Do you have a secret "Lands Sense" where you can pick us out?

---

The unmistakable stare that those who follow MARIT LAGE give off to nonbelievers and heretics about to be struck down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegacyIsAnEternalFormat

I actually do play legacy in real life and I have been playing Legacy since Worldwake.

I play JUND.(The only legacy deck I have ever owned and one that I have mastered throughtout the years)

---

That just sounds so... "funny".