I can post you links to talking for Modern that say they will never ban Twin and talks to Vintage that say they would never restrict Gush. In short, we have no fucking clue what they will do and claiming you know is foolish.
Printable View
I can post you links to talking for Modern that say they will never ban Twin and talks to Vintage that say they would never restrict Gush. In short, we have no fucking clue what they will do and claiming you know is foolish.
Don't you just frame the whole format here by pointing at Non-discard, non-hatebear, non-counter decks not being compeditive? I feel we need to look at the linearity of Belcher, Dredge or others, which can be hated out with a single angle of disruption, which isn't true for SurvivalQuote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
That is the core of the problem we saw during the last SotF era, which mirrored the issues with Dredge/MUD in Vintage: Players were forced to dedicate a large amount of SB space just for one matchup and still unable to turn these matchups into favorable ones postboard. One may say, we see similar with Miracles these days(especially if a players opts to play a combo or creature deck).
The question to ask is if there is enough quality hate to battle THE DECK rather than just SotF as a card, which isn't necessarily vital for the remaining 56 cards. We have seen that shutting off SotF was no backbreaker for GW Survival in the past as the deck still was able to ran over its opponents. These days a BGW variant of the deck could easily include DRS, Thoughtseize, Thalia, Tarmogoyf (and maybe Vengevine) and play like TheRock as a submode no matter how many Pithing Needle or Decays an opponent board just to battle SotF AS A CARD. Its a more complex issue which isn't really covered in the ongoing discussion.
Thats exactly what I am saying. Vengevine is still a valid threat to be hardcast. Some in this thread claim the card being "garbage" if you can't cheat it into play, which I disagree withQuote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
If you only look at major events, there is not very much data to support the idea that Miracles is dominating the format. Most major events in the last two or three months have zero or one miracles list in the top8:Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12947&f=LE
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12908&f=LE
- 772 players - 1 Miracles deck in top8.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12863&f=LE
- 167 players - 2 Miracles decks in top8
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12671&f=LE
- 202 players - no Miracles in top8.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12433&f=LE
- 1480 players - 1 Miracles deck in top8.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12443&f=LE
- 426 players - 1 Miracles deck in top8.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=12215&f=LE
- 292 players - 1 Miracles deck in top8.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=11998&f=LE
- 221 players - no Miracles in top8.
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=11945&f=LE
- 300 players - no Miracles decks in top8.
- 238 players - no Miracles in top8.
The only major event to actually feature a lot of Miracles in the top8 was Columbus - that's one major event out of ten. Unless I've missed any major events (if so, please bring them to the table), that's an average of exactly one Miracles list per top8, or 12.5 per cent.
Prevalent? Absolutely!
Top deck? Probably yes.
Dominating Legacy? Certainly not the big tournament scene!
We have so few larger events these days that I'm afraid our deck-to-beat data crunch has been horribly corrupted by countless rinky-dinky MTGO tournaments, which tell a very different story than if we only follow the big leagues. I personally put much more stock in those larger tournaments where luck is less a factor and more different decks are typically represented.
Yet whenever so much as a single major event (most recently Prague) is skewed disproportionately in favour of Miracles, the haters come out of the wood-works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
I've kept data since 2012 on anything 6 rounds and over and Miracles is the only constant with a 15% meta share for almost 4 years now. Miracles has been far and away the only deck to do that. I'm not sure how else you would classify dominance when no one else is even at 10% share. This is also not including MODO data which also has Miracles as its biggest percentage holder.
The issue with that is not that people are pointing to Prague alone. DTB stats, Miracles has been the undisputed top dog since Feb 14. Nothing in that time (Save for one very lackluster month where there were no events played) has done anything to put any kind of roadblock in the decks growing popularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
Saying "One event does not make a trend" does cut both ways, but the trend I do see has been ongoing for two and a bit years. So while a single event like Prague may have been held up a little higher than it should have (Thought I would add that Columbus was held up higher) it's not without ongoing issues that make people point fingers. No one is commenting that Goblin Stompy made top 8. Its not an issue. No one is seeking to defend or condemn it. There is no fuel on that fire. But there is fuel elsewhere and not without merit.
Regardless of where you stand, and these days I stand with just making sure the data is right, the data does support a trend. Brainstorm, for those who wish to masterbate over that arugmunt is the undisputed top dog when it comes to cards played. Has stayed that way every month as far back as I can find Data for. Miracles is the undisputed top dog when it comes to decks played, but in it's defence it at least does not always keep the spot of "Most effective deck last month".
Data wise, people seeking to defend the deck have an uphill battle to say that everything is a-ok. Thats just on the data. Not even talking about personal views. People said Eldrazi would kill it, data does not support that claim. Data says that the two largest decks over the last 5 years have been Maverick and Miracles, with Miracles holding the most points in a month title for 2 of the top 3 data sets. Mav taking the third back in 2012. So that point of Data I am not sure is relevant any longer.
How far back can I push the data? 2009. Though 09 is not of great use to anyone. In that time what can I see? The fall of aggro (March 2010 top decks are Zoo, Bant, Fish, Goblins and ANT.) and the rise of the Tempo-Control meta. In this new Meta two decks have stood above all else, one of those decks has fallen, reinvented itself and then risen again (Delver) and the other has never fallen at all.
So I would argue that it is not that people come out of the woodwork when an events like Columbus-Prague happen, I would argue people get bored and stop watching, then bitch that this is happening again. A point they have every right to make.
That was not my intention, if it came across that way. My point was to show that some decks have an almost guaranteed win game 1 against others. And I am of the opinion that is fine! Even if games 2 and 3 are still lop-sided, as long as the entire format isn't that way. I enjoy that deck selection and construction is as important as actual player skill and blind luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Keep in mind I did not play when Survival was legal, so I am reliant on you to correct my mistakes. This thought experiment would likely benefit from a list, but I am going to assume an optimal Survival plan looks like:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Turn 1 Dork
Turn 2 Survival, activate
Turn 3 go nuts
That seems Legacy fair to me. The issue I see is whether this strategy is so good that all creature strategies adopt it. But something like D+T seems well positioned to defeat Survival. It has main deck Phyrexian Revokers, removal for dorks, sideboard RiP and other hate. Plus first strikers and lifelinkers with equipment. So I'd guess D+T would still be around.
Elves might adopt it, but does it even really want the card? Doesn't it just add an extra step towards winning (granted it would increase consistency).
Eldrazi wouldn't want it. Too much :g:
Maverick and Jund would probably become Survival decks (I guess? I really don't know).
There may have only been one Miracles deck in the top 8 at the open, but the deck also placed 9th and 15th, and was the most-represented archetype on day two.
Most represented by exactly a count of one:
Miracles – 7
Colorless Eldrazi – 6
Lands – 5
Infect – 5
The 4th and 9th place Miracles players, so 2 of those 7, have won SCG Opens. The deck is appealing to really good players, and good players should be expected to have good results. If all the Miracles aficionados - generally very strong players - all started jamming Eldrazi decks is there any doubt that Eldrazi wouldn't be everywhere? I feel like people act like these decks appear out of nowhere and win a tournament on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iatee
Doesn't that argument go the other way, as in good players are running Miracles because it's already such a strong deck.
Its not about if 16 damage via Vengevine by turn 3 is fair or not (Imo it absolutely is), but if the warping effect the deck had on creature strategies and building sideboards in general. In short, the card was reducing diversity in a drastic way within the aggro-supertype, completely destroying what was left of Goblins.dec, Zoo and more in Legacy, as SotF subtypes were outclassing other creature strategies by far and challenging the rest of the format as one of the very rare Aggro-Combo decks in the formats history (beside Aluren, Foodchain, etc.). Survival variants existed in RGB, BGW, UG, BUG and UWG, which indicates how oppressive the card was paired with ANY creature shell, no matter if one used LoyalRetainer, Vengevines or N.Ooze as their combo finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
Maverick is the successor (or better say: remains) of the old GW Survival decks which initially replaced SotF with the later printed GSZ and today Zenith would be played alongside SotF to add insult to injury considering all the stuff which was printed since then like DRS, Dryad Arbor, Decay, R.Sage, etc for a stability and redundancy Survical subypes 6 years ago could not dream of. Elves already shred D&T, so lets imagine the position of white weenie, if Elves could pop 16 hasty power by turn 2 thanks to Cradle, have R.Sages in demand to kill every equipment at any time and can stick together all the bounce/untap comboes with the doubled number of tutors. Mind we just talk about Elves and D&T so far, as Jund, Junk, NicFit, etc as currently different archetypes would vanish, just to profit from the green tutor shell with various color flavors we have already witnessed back in the days. Why would one bother with Stoneforge Mystic to cheat in a Batterskull for 2WW total, if you could slap your opponent with hasty, recurring 4/3 plants for G (survical) or 2GG (hardcast)?
All these different decks would vanish creating a "green variant" of the blue cantrips for creating redundancy in decks and what the format needs is more diversity and sure NOT a degeneration into "blue cantrips vs. Green Tutors" which the unbanning of SotF would likely result into as most of the "hate" which was mentioned in this thread WORKS EVEN BETTER IN the Survival decks. It would be the Mental Misstep mistake all over again, which did the opposite of what the card was supposed to do aka making blue decks better rather than fighting combo and cantrips
Good players are running Miracles because its the T1 deck that gives you the most decision making power and the most room to outplay your opponents. If you're a good player and Miracles and Eldrazi are equally strong in a vacuum, it makes more sense to play the one that lets you leverage your competitive advantage of being a good player. That's one of the reasons why spikes have flocked to blue control decks for 20 years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
How do you possibly do that? I've played in local events that large a far bit, and I doubt any were ever logged in a giant database. I suspect there are local level 6 round events happening all the time. And 6 rounds is not many. There is always variance in tournaments, but 6 rounds is pretty dicey. the major tournaments I listed have 167 players on the low end.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
There's a difference between being the best deck and being dominant, I think. But IMO a deck which can miss 40% of top8s in the big events is pretty much disqualified. It's a vague call, I guess. But if I can look at that many top8s and not even see it, it ain't dominant.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
Obviously this comes down to my inclination towards bigger tournaments. In all fairness you could say I'm overvaluing them.
Anything that's reported on TC and MTGTop 8, which is a pretty good sketch of what Legacy looks like.
6 rounds is a cut off The Source has used before and there are pages and pages of arguments about it before I settled on that specific set. Your argument simply consists of, "WELL I DON'T THINK IT'S DOMINANT" when it's comparative numbers are much higher than anything else. Is your view solely based on Top 8s and no MODO data? What percentage does it have to be IN vs. comprise of in order to be dominant? What is the significance of 167? Is that a round cut off that I missed or just an arbitrary pick?
Considering you think Chalice is worse offender to Legacy than something from Miracles, it's hard not to think it's just bias for liking that specific deck.
Reanimator and mystical ANT had a smaller percentage of penetration than miracles does and they got mystical tutor axed for it. Sure WotC hates combo, but sensei's top is virtually a 1 card combo and probably as hated as storm at this point because people hate really slow games of magic and top is the posterchild for that. Coverage suffers a lot from the card as well as nobody likes watching the player with top spin every single turn and tank over how to rearrange the cards.
As for survival, show and tell is a dangerous card to put on the stack when a survival is in play and a green mana is available to the survival player. People may be used to the card being one sided channel, but it's anything but when survival can tutor any creature in the game in response to SnT to just wreck the sneak and show players face. It doesn't even have to be emrakul it can be as simple as fleshbag marauder to eat their creature they put in.
Survival is still just a busted magic card. I love welder survival and all those clever grindy survival decks of old. But when WotC's design philosophy consists of print more stupid creatures to (ab)use with survival, what universe can you possibly unban it in? People like to say that hardcasting vengevine is shit. Well, people did that last time survival was legal and it seemed pretty damn good when it won them the game. Sure if you were hardcasting vengevine in a deck like canadian thresh you would say that's a shitty play, but survival decks have a lot more permanent mana sources than most legacy decks via noble hierarch, birds of paradise, and just more lands so jamming 4 mana 4/3 haste onto the stack isn't actually terrible and pretty damn good when it hits for 8 points over 2 turns.
We still have to admit that Mystical Tutor would not have got fairer over time. Timing and reasoning for the ban was still the biggest offender to players since the Reserved List and the fact that LaPille is still working in development shows how fucked up the company isQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ritual
Fixed ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ritual
I loved Teen Titans and Survical AdvantageQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ritual
AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ritual
I'm using MTGtop8, and using their division of major events vs smaller events. I'm not sure exactly where they draw the line, but 167 happens to be the smallest recent event listed as "major". Also, it so happens that not a single MODO event has been listed as a more event there either -unless I've missed one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
I won't give a number, because it's a not a sharp division. Maybe 20-25% sustained over a few or several months. And for a deck to be dominant, I should at least be surprised not to see it in a major top8. Whereas that's becoming quite common with Miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
You might be mixing me up with somebody else, because I think Chalice is good for Legacy. I love Chalice!Quote:
Originally Posted by HSCK
And I don't think Legacy has any Offenders. The closest Legacy has to a "problem" in my opinion is too much good stuff - too many decks running the same threats. I like seeing decks like Eldrazi, Affinity, Infect, etc because they all run unique and synergistic threats. Cards like Goyf, DRS, SFM, etc show up in too many decks for my liking. That's my only real bias I think.
I would be courious what Losett thinks are those hosing SB cards are... Aside from super hateful cards like choke or boil I don't see how you can prepare to beat miracles with 2-4 Sb cards...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alka
Null Rod and needle are probably the best, because they shut of their main engine in SDT, but I see most Miracles lsit running 2-3 W//T nowadays so there is that.
Overall the deck is just to volitale and resiliant to specific cards.
Mentor makes it so, that you have to leave in removal or sweepers that are normally just bad against them.
Predict allows them to catch up on the atrition plan, which they already are well equipped for with top
Terminus means you can't go aggro on them
Blood Moon is still there and might just steal games from you
They still have the instant win button in entreat which you can only counter.
A deck that can run Top (allways draw better than you op), CB(kill all spell decks), Mentor(go wide out of nowhere), Terminus(instant wrath for W), Entreat(ups, I win button), Bloodmoon (see Entreat) deserves a Ban in my opinion.
Hateful cards do not work unless they are uncounterable; specifically this means that any piece of actual hate you bring in basically has to be a 2-card combo with Boseju or Cavern of Souls to be reliable in any way at all (you still have to beat Blood Moon and/or B2B though). It's also important to define an actual hate card as something you have to deal with to realistically win, for the case of miracles that generally means killing basic lands (preferably basic Plains). Multiple Slaughter Game/extraction effects are also theoretically reasonable ways to reduce the deck to a pile of cards that can't meaningfully interact; at this point though, you should remove wincons (of which there are about 3 distinct names on average). Without pairing extraction effects, discard [the usual backup plan of fair decks] is an utterly invalid strategy against SDT unless you're a combo deck like ANT or perhaps Aluren (i.e. able to kill that turn or the next). You have hit the nail on the head though, you don't achieve a favorable matchup vs. miracles (and by that I mean Counterbalance the card) without a 75 card plan....which is, let us say, problematic when you run into any other legacy deck. The big takeaway with SDT though is that it doesn't really matter that they draw "better" than you, what matters is you probably diluted your deck with an ineffective discard mechanic and lost b/c of it. The instant speed wrath enabler and better draws are more the icing on the cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphBerlin
Your post certainly conveys annoyance at a deck that can hate out your deck with a sideboard slot or two, while the inverse is nowhere near true; but you're just naming off all parts of their deck instead of making a point about piece x. What is the card you want banned towards that end? How will banning that card open up their entire deck to a hateful SB slot that they can't win through without answering?
My first point is, that there are no real "hate" cards so I don't get Losetts point. How many decks in the Format can play Boseiju+Boil? All of the Miracles SB cards just help you a little bit but it is not like RiP for Dredge. And if you spend 6 SB cards to gear your decks toward miracles you will loose to the 75 rest of the field like you said. So I take his comment which is often quoted as quite Biased. I would like to know of him a 75 cards list for some dekcs, that beats ALL the miracles variants, while being ok against the rest of the field. until somebody comes up with this I doubt there is one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
My point is, that while neither of the cards is too oppressive on it's own (except for top maybe), it's the fact that they have ALL the tools, which makes this deck to strong in my opinion. The problem (narrowed down) is that Terminus puts you in favor of any creature strategy(most aggro decks/midrange decks), while CB keeps you save against the 'spell-1-drop" strategies (mostly combo). It is not healthy if the control deck of the format is both favored against the Aggro/Midrange and Combo decks of the Meta (see also BBDs opinion)
A top Ban would weaken/kill Terminus, CB, Entreat and Mentor, while making it much more vulnerable to discard. So that's a huge setback. A Terminus/Cb ban would mean not banning the most powerful card, which is kind of illogical, but would give one of the two Superarchtypies some leverage back against this deck. So i would say if you want to kill the deck ban top, if you want to weaken it ban CB/Terminus.
The issue with the "The deck can be beaten" argument is that it is irrelevant. I don't mean that the argument itself is legitimate or not, I mean from Wizards point of view it will not stop them.
Shops could be beaten. The issue was that decks running 6 to 7 main deck Mental Misstep/Flusterstorm and 14 Lands happen to be the norm in Vintage. So Shops really had it easy against these decks while people piloting them bitched. Shops though could get blown out by a single card and Landstill often did just that to me, but that point did not matter when no one wanted to adapt, just throw tantrums.
Now regardless of what side of the debate your on for Miracles, you have to admit it really doesn't matter if the deck can be beaten or not, because it has no bearing on the views of those making the choices at the top. My point of view was that a Restriction of MM would have actually harmed Shops badly because the slots would have been filled with hate as everyone unilaterally disarmed. But that view did not matter. I still lost key cards from my deck. Your views on Miracles will not matter, the choice is out of your hands and your options don't change that.
The "problem" with Miracles is that its beating combo AND aggro decks which is causing significant issues with the metagame balance if aggro-subtypes lose to combo AND control decks which renders them basically unplayable. As Miracles has all the tools to control the stack AND the field, effective sideboarding-hate is an illusion as they can remove any Choke, Needle, man-plan, Armageddon, Boil and more thanks to their SDT digging for any solution. The most annoying fact however is that the deck plays the clock, dragging out every game endlessly with two dozen of SDT activations per match with the pilot, rearranging, tanking, deciding to fetch or not, etc. which isn't too different from the blue cantrips in the early game, but unlike Ponder/Brainstorm/Preordain, the look-tank-rearrange-fetch-look-tank-rearrange with every shuffle effect crossing the way or every Counterbalance trigger during the game makes games lasting longer than 6 turns a painful drag. We ALL faced Miracles players who look at the top three cards 3+ times a turn, especially the lackluster end of turn top spinning and/or the post-drawphase one (followed by Ponder followed by looking at the top 3 again).Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphBerlin
I doubt WotC is banning Terminus as it wouod look awkward on paper and can be substituted to a certain extend by Pyroclasm or more Entreats for 4/4 flying blockers out of nowhere against opposing assaults. To go in line with Modern banlist, I think that SDT would be their favorite ban, given that the deck has only Lands.dec as its natural predator as due to doging meaningful interaction completely (CB @ 2 to block Loam aside).
I want to chime in asking what Losett has in mind if he points to SB cards which are a REAL problem for Miracles and doesn't get easily dealt with W/T, Plows or CB
Or Council's Judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I won't hold my breath.
You also have to play magic. You can't just find a card that wins you immediately the game if you happen to draw it...
Your reasonning is biased and the same could be done for any deck: how can I beat shardless? They draw so many cards with fow backup then resolve liliana and have abrupt decay for my hate?
Needle, null rod and chalice as well as choke are really good against miracles for instance. Sure maybe you wont draw them, maybe you will be countered or they will have the wear tear. Maybe not and that card will win you the game. We're trying to play magic, where interaction should exist. Most miracles list dont play council's judgement anymore, 2 WT max in the SB and you can reasonably expect to resolve a 3 cmc through CB lock (which is not that easy to assemble and is a 2 card combo that doesnt win immediately the game. You can also counter the CB). If they counter your hate or deal with it, maybe you can resolve a threat of you own then?
Joe's argument is not good either: any deck can be beaten if you SB for it and play well. I think miracles is definitely warping the metagame, as lots of decks splash for decay just to deal with CB, and it is one of the most dominant decks in legacy. I don't know if that will lead to a ban: legacy is warped by lots of things: fast combo (play fow or loose to belcher) for instance.
Edit: about time issues its true that SDT is a strong offender but that also comes down to the players. I drew a lot of matches playing miracles because my opponent played really slowly without top. Top won't slow down fast players a lot and slow players will still play slowly if they don't have top (people taking 15 seconds to resolve a ponder are also annoying). This is not an argument against top ban (less library interaction=less opportunities for such players to burn through time) but to say that banning top wont solve timing issues in legacy.
Envoyé de mon SM-A500FU en utilisant Tapatalk
Winter Orb, Null Rod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
http://www.starcitygames.com/events/..._profiles.html
Should Sensei's Diving Top be banned in Legacy?
Joe Lossett: Really, that's the question this week? Miracles is beatable if you have good cards in the board and play well.
Should Sensei's Diving Top be banned in Legacy?
Ed Demicco: No, just ban Joe Lossett.
Null Rod is good but how is it devastating? Compare it to the effect of a Resolved Blood Moon against BUG for instance. It is an ok sideboard card but no hoser.Quote:
Originally Posted by twndomn
Bad try, dood. Very bad try. Both cards get easily countered (CB @2 via counterspell, counterbalance, W/T, etc on top of the library) or removed by CJ, W/T, etc. with the ability to find removal for the artifacts not significantly limited as Brainstorm & Ponder & Jace are still around to dig.Quote:
Originally Posted by twndomn
Reminds me of the SotF discussion: "Card is fine because Decay & Needle exist!" lol
Edit: Even if you shut off SDT it does not hinder Miracles to push its gameplan at all. You can still setup Terminus/Entreat with Brainstorm/Ponder/Jace
They can use decay: they generally play 2 basics now + DRS.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphBerlin
The wear tear agument against null rod is equally viable for blood moon against shardless. I can use the same reasonning to say that moon is bad against shardless: doesnt deal with their board they can counter of discard it, they can take mana in response to decay, or just have a basic swamp and deathrite. Just like miracles can have WT, or sometimes it won't, sometimes they wont have the CB lock, sometimes they won't have a 2 on top. Of course if you consider the best case scenario, a lot of legacy decks are unbeatable thtough hate (dredge has nature's claim...)
And null rod/needle on top can be devastating in games as miracles can struggle without top and be really cluncky, especially non-predict versions.
Envoyé de mon SM-A500FU en utilisant Tapatalk
Well you can't allways afford to fetch for basics and DRS is a happy StP target. If you don't have 2 out 3 (2 basics or DRS) you can just scoop. Because you have to exaactly draw your basics. There is no such card for miracles (besides Armagedon/Boil effects)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
My point though is, that you can still dig for answers with Rod/orb out.
So you compare "have no more mana to do anything" with "Oh, I cannot use my 4 Artifacts in the deck, but thanksfully can still cast all other 56 cards totally unaffected"? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
Well 52 since with needle on top you can't use CB. You will also draw terminus when you don't need it and not have the right answers at the right time. Resolving such an effect won't win you the game on the spot but its a good start. So yes to be fair, they are not on the same level. Stuff like chalice or cataclysm/armaggedon seem like a better comparaison as "hoser" type cards. A resolved chalice on 1 is nearly unbeatable for most miracles decks (apart from the dream scenario where yiu already have top and find WT and you are not dead in the meantime, of course) PS. I also find it a good thing that most deck can beat even the meanest of hate cards (eg dredge can beat rip with natures claim etc). Unbeatable SB cards are so unfun for both players...
To continue the moon analogy, who cares if you have no more mana with 2 goyfs on the table? Sure we can always think of theoretical situations where a hate card is devastating (no board no basics, blood moon I win) or irrelevant (swamp+ deathrite + goyf, nice blood moon bro). A well set up moon sure is stronger against shardless than a needle against miracles, though you need less set up and if miracles has nothing but tops, CB and terminus in had, needle can win you the game.
We can imagine situations all day, but the fact is that needle or null rod are strong hate cards against miracles, as they attack what makes the deck good (top giving the miracles player consistancy+ answer + combo). The posts about needle and null rod refer to a situation where miracles already has assembled CB+top and has WT in hand. A more likely scenario is that the miracles player plays top turn 1, his opponent needles on his turn and the miracles guy choses to let his top be a blank on the field or draw it again next turn, possibly drawing blank CB or other tops in the future abd having to hope to draw several BS to shuffle all the dead cards and find WT, possibly while being beaten up by a delver. The context is really important when evaluating the impact of those cards. It is also important to mention that the cards we're talking about require no set up nor deckbuilding restrictions other than not playing top yourself (or artefacts for null rod)
The more interesting point is that new predict lists are built in a way they are better without top to fight through the hate. I also think that if you need specific SB answers to deal with a small part of a fair deck, it's a strong sign that this deck may be to strong.
To sum up my point: it is true that you can beat miracles with SB cards, those SB cards can be devastating. But that is irrelevant to the discussion that miracles deserves or not a ban. What matters is the power level of the deck (which I think is ok, but its up to debate), and its warping effect on the meta (which I think is not ok and warrants a ban. I think CB is the main offender here)
Edit: I edited the post 2-3 times as some more thoughts came to mind, hope it's still clear :)
Envoyé de mon SM-A500FU en utilisant Tapatalk
Because the deck isn't running Jace/Brainstorm/Ponder to keep CB active ... oh wait!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
Jace/Brainstorm/Ponder? Do you even play Legacy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
Its about SB cards which are an actual problem for Miracles to follow their gameplan or to win. Blocking SDT (and to a lower extend CBs effectiveness) isn't backbreaking unless the Miraclea pilot kept a total crap hand and forgot how to play Legacy with "only" 8 cantrips (and Jaces).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
aka the opponent is a greedy idiot folding immediately, if their SDT gets FoW'd, dazed, discarded, needled? The part about the goyfs is misleading as Terminus still exists to lock the opponent out under BloodMoonQuote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
And yet it still does not hinder Miracles to play their game and setting up Miracle-Spells with Ponder/Brainstorm/Jace. All you attack is the stack-control which a skilled Miracles player can work around unless you are a combo deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
I still don't get why one would include Predict in a deck with already so much cardadvantage. Just my 0.02$Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
Thats simply not true, pointing at stuff like Needle or Nullrod. The only card screwing the whole Ponder/Brainstorm/SDT bullshit is Chalice of the Void which isn't a SB card. There is no SB card which significanly affects Miracles' ability to progress their gameplan and win. The named SB cards make his goal ONLY SLIGHTLY HARDER to reach, if we can even talk about "hard" with all the remaining library manipulation still available even if you block SDTQuote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
What matter is the decks effect on the metagame by kicking ANY aggro & combo deck in the nutz preboard, requiring plenty of SB space to fight it and the deck having essentially killed any aggro strategy in the format by being able to counter/wipe all creatures over and over for a single mana. The deck harms format diversity by driving any natural predators for Delver variants out of the format. I am totally fine with it as a combo police deck, but a control deck which is also so damn good against aggro destroys the format balance, so banning Counterbalance would not make the situation better for aggro strategies at all, but imprive the position of combo/tempo only with the aggro supertype still getting crushed by Terminus, Tendrils and S&T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingbrago
Have you tried to play Miracles without top?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Miracles relys so heavily on it's filtering, as it can't just randomly take control.
Without top, the deck becomes SIGNIFICANTLY weaker.
"Weaker" in terms of "having to run the same filtering like the rest of blue decks, plus Jace"? We all know how "weak" Ponder + Brainstorm are in Legacy, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasim0ff
There's a fundemental difference in how the decks use cantrips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Miracles often use them to survive. The same cannot be said for the other (tempo, midrage and combo) decks. They aim at ending the game asap. Miracles doesn't do that, in the same fashion, as it's unable to do so.
There's quite a difference in seeing Stoneforge/Delver/Show and Tell/Infernal tutor and then counterbalance/top/terminus.
Lem, I know shit gets somewhat heated in here, but please refrain from the "Do you even play Legacy" argument. Attack the argument whole, not the person making it.
Without SDT, Counterbalance is completely inviable. These cards live for each other. If you can't counter 2+ spells with CB, it's no better than playing Counterspell, right? I find Counter Top interaction to be acceptable, it has been around for a long time in Legacy. The problem is removing WHATEVER your opponent throws at you with a 1 mana instant Wrath of God that doesn't even put the creatures into the graveyard. Terminus is an OK card that becomes broken with the existence of Top and Brainstorm.
We can argue that SDT would be the best fit for the ban, because it also eats the clock up when the player is slow (or durdling on purpose). But that would definitely kill the archtype. Miracles isn't possible to exist without BOTH Brainstorm and Sensei's Top, they're indispensable for the deck's strategy (and the first being the sacred cow of Legacy, that won't ever get banned for any reason).
The problem with Miracles is that the deck has answers and solutions for every matchup. We can't hate on their lands because they run basics. We can't hate on Top because that card can save itself (unless you want to pack Krosan Grip). We can't overextend on the boardstate because of Terminus, but if we cast a low number of threats, they can be dealt with in the stack (Counterbalance) and in the field (Swords to Plowshares + Snapcaster Mage). They only seem to have a hard time against resolved Planeswalkers, but Council's Judgement and Monastery Mentor can also take care of that.
Terminus is the big deal. Supreme Verdict/Day of Judgement/Wrath of God needs 3 extra mana at Sorcery speed. Miracles don't usually splash black for Toxic Deluge (which is the second best hoser in the format). This is probably the best option to make the deck still viable, but significantly weaker.
Roger, Dice. Sometimes entering this thread is like throwing a bowl of water into boiling oil. Sorry, palQuote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Edit:
I could swear people in this thread called Brainstorm unfair, because it renders Discard less efficient to fight combo decks, if the combo player uses the card defensively. There is no difference if you use your Ponder to setup Entreat or to dig for S&T. There is no difference if you use brainstorm to find a Plow to remove a creature or to find a Decay for Chalice. Its not a question of the deck. You can use the cantrips to setup offensive and defensive actions in any deck which runs themQuote:
Originally Posted by Quasim0ff
This is a fair point but I don't know if it would make the deck that much weaker to creature strategies. Pyroclasm effects help against go wide strategies and playing more spot removal (bolt/pte) + snapcaster should be enough to deal with zoo/maverick style decks (modern jeskai control decks run few to no sweepers and have good MU against creature decks generally).
The warping effect of terminus is also harder to quantify: we cant really say that creature decks such as zoo or mavericks are pushed out of the meta because of combo or terminus. On the other hand, lots of decks splash for decay specifically to answer CB. Ultimately, a ban on terminus or on CB (a top ban effectively bans both) opens space for different strategies. It is possible that wizards goes for terminus in order to make room for creature strategies.
I also think that the fact that they chose or not to ban a card will say a lot about how they will manage the format in the long run. A deck as strong and warping as miracles would be banned without a doubt in modern, but they tend to be more lenient with legacy
Envoyé de mon SM-A500FU en utilisant Tapatalk
Totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I'd also be happy about Top being banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by porcupinetreeman
Brainstorm... meh. In a format without Top I'd leave Brainstorm alone.
Edit: even if that meant Miracles ran 4 brainstorm, 4 snapcaster, 4 ponder, etc. Hell, they could even go old school and run those paint thinner artifacts to get the draw on the opponents turn for all I care.