All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tescrin

So everyone! All you have to do is:
* Run no uncounterable spells or maybe run only spells that cost 7+
* Run no creatures
* Run Blue or BGx

---

Mono white, colourless, and R/G seem to be doing okay too though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

You play either Countertop, chalice or Decay in Legacy, if you want to actually win anything

---

There are currently five decks in DTB. One plays Counter-Top, one plays Chalice (main), one plays Decay. The other two do not. Maybe we should say:

• Play Counter-Top, or
• Play Chalice, or
• Play Decay, or
• Play Vial, or
• Play Loam

Not really much substance here, because that basically says play any one of the five DTBs!

I think this thread should be renamed The Official Ranting About The Format & Metagame Thread. It would be a more accurate description. Sorry for interrupting the bitch-fest. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

• Play Counter-Top, or
• Play Chalice, or
• Play Decay, or
• Play Vial, or
• Play Loam

Not really much substance here, because that basically says play any one of the five DTBs!

I think this thread should be renamed The Official Ranting About The Format & Metagame Thread. It would be a more accurate description. Sorry for interrupting the bitch-fest. Carry on.

---

Funny that you talk about "accurate" description, given that Loam plays Chalice and you still count it as two decks. Its not that you differ for sideboard Decays either.

Essentially you can group Miracles/D&T/Eldrazi/Lands together as "ensure your opponent can't play the game".

I might change that to play Vial + Cavern and Boseju + Loam (or SnT) @Crimhead. Regardless the list is completely composed of non-interactive cards, and Counterbalance is the card at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Regardless the list is completely composed of non-interactive cards.

---

Jup, its...

Countertop + Terminus
Thalia + Wasteland + Port/GhostQuarter
Chalice + Thorn + Wasteland
Chalice + Wasteland + Port/GhostQuarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Funny that you talk about "accurate" description, given that Loam plays Chalice and you still count it as two decks. Its not that you differ for sideboard Decays either.

Essentially you can group Miracles/D&T/Eldrazi/Lands together as "ensure your opponent can't play the game".

---

Loam decks normally play Chalice as a tool, not a game plan. I would not suggest that the point is mute, but I think that there is a large gap between a deck that seeks to defend itself with Chalice and a deck that seeks to build around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Loam decks normally play Chalice as a tool, not a game plan. I would not suggest that the point is mute, but I think that there is a large gap between a deck that seeks to defend itself with Chalice and a deck that seeks to build around it.

---

Loam uses chalice to battle combo just like Storm uses Decay to combo Counterbalance and Chalice. We group elves, storm, BUG delver, shardless and others together no matter if MB or SB Decays, so I think the same standard should apply to the other cards. I mean countertop was played in S&T as well as HighTide

I have never seen all those decks ever bound together over Decay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

I have never seen all those decks ever bound together over Decay.

---

I'm going to agree here, there's a pretty large difference between 4x DRS + 4x Decay, 1x DRS + 4x Chalice + 4x Decay + GSZ, and combo decks that only run Decay for CB over all the other possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Loam decks normally play Chalice as a tool, not a game plan. I would not suggest that the point is mute, but I think that there is a large gap between a deck that seeks to defend itself with Chalice and a deck that seeks to build around it.

---

Counterbalance isn't the game-plan either. The real meat of the deck is Terminus, STP, and ETA. You're not building Miracles around CB, you're building it around those 3 white spells. By your logic, Chalice decks kinda are built around Chalice considering they don't run 1-drop spells (outside a singleton DRS MD and some SB cards).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual

Counterbalance isn't the game-plan either. The real meat of the deck is Terminus, STP, and ETA. You're not building Miracles around CB, you're building it around those 3 white spells. By your logic, Chalice decks kinda are built around Chalice considering they don't run 1-drop spells (outside a singleton DRS MD and some SB cards).

---

CB/SDT functioning as Time Vault/Voltaic Key is actually the game plan. The rest is stuff you need against the rest of the format, especially when they're packing Ugin's Nexus in the form of absurd cmcs/Cavern, Vial, Bosejus/Decay. Miracles is first and foremost a combo deck. This deck does not make deep tournament runs on the back of white cards that don't 40:1 entire chunks of the meta game. On the contrary, it gets away with running white cards b/c it can sit back and never spend a real resource against decks where such cards have no text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual

Counterbalance isn't the game-plan either. The real meat of the deck is Terminus, STP, and ETA. You're not building Miracles around CB, you're building it around those 3 white spells. By your logic, Chalice decks kinda are built around Chalice considering they don't run 1-drop spells (outside a singleton DRS MD and some SB cards).

---

Some are, Stacks and Mud I would argue build with the card in mind. Built to start the curve at 2 so they are not as affected by the card. I would like to run a one of Map in Stax, but I don't because I would rarely get to fetch it and cast it, the reason I would add it.

Lands on the other hand runs Chalice to stop Combo. Its mutual hate, because you have Rotation, Exploration and Gamble, but it does more to the other guy than you when you drop it against Storm. In this case you are not running Chalice as a game plan, you are running it as a defensive action against matchups that are really really bad. In short, when playing Stax I drop Chalice and see if it wins the game. In Lands, if I see Lotus Petal I side in Chalice and hope I can use it to delay you and then kill you with my 20/20. The actions come with very different intentions.

As for Miracles, its built around an artifact, not a bunch of White spells.

Edit:
Just to add. I do not think a deck that runs a card in the sideboard is a "X Card" deck. A deck running Decay in the side, like Elves, is not a "Decay Deck". The deck is not built around using that card. The card in question is an answer to a problem, not a part of the decks main game plan. If it was meant to be used in the decks main plan it would be in the main. The same goes for Chalice, Force in some cases or even CounterTop, which has at times been used in a transformational sideboard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CutthroatCasual

Counterbalance isn't the game-plan either. The real meat of the deck is Terminus, STP, and ETA. You're not building Miracles around CB, you're building it around those 3 white spells. By your logic, Chalice decks kinda are built around Chalice considering they don't run 1-drop spells (outside a singleton DRS MD and some SB cards).

---

Against a competent player if countertop is never assembled in a game it is incredibly hard for to miracles to win. It is based on the counterbalance top combo to win games, which is why null rod and such are amazing against it because it shuts off countertop hardlock and makes counterbalance flip over top card, hope to counter and we know how well that works if we need to consistently counter all the things. They simply run white for creature removal, and if creature removal was the only thing that mattered in legacy clearly you wouldn't need force of will, you'd just go 4 path to exile, 4 plow, 4 deathmark, 4 punishing fire, etc. etc. all jammed into a single deck to kill all the things. Terminus is simply the best sweeper in the format since it's 1 mana and instant speed to kill everything in the deck that plays it typically because miracles might as well be called Sensei's divining top.dec because without top, it is a pile of clunky pieces trying to achieve 1000 horsepower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btm10

I'll indulge this because it's interesting, but I'll state my priors first:

1. Miracles is too good relative to the rest of the format. Rich Shay described it as "the only Tier Zero deck in the format" at Eternal Weekend, and he was right. That being said, it's better contained now than it was prior to Eldrazi and the D&T upgrades.

---

No. Miracles is not Tier Zero. Not even close. You want a Tier Zero deck? Look at the Eldrazi in Modern before it got banned. That was a Tier Zero deck. Miracles is nowhere near that.

Though I do often wonder to what extent the format would shift if the prices weren't so obscenely high. There are decks that are pretty good against Miracles. 12-Post, for example, mops the floor with it. However, 12-Post also requires investing in Candelabras and also picking up a Tabernacle or two, which are cards that are very restrictive in the decks they can go into. If you pay all that money for Candelabras, you can't use them in another deck unless you want to pick up High Tide which really isn't that good nowadays. People tend to make their monetary investments into cards that can go in a variety of decks, which is true of basically every expensive card in Miracles. Of course, conversely, it might be that the high prices are what keep people with their current decks and there would be less diversity if prices were lower as everyone would just hop over to Miracles. I guess you just have to deal with the format as it is.

People have made the same comments, that it costs too much and the cards don't go in anything else, about Lands. When the deck picked up speed, those arguments feel away because it became obvious the deck was effective enough to see play. I think the issue with 12 Post is not it's cost but it's effectiveness. The deck is just not very good.

While it does have a strong matchup against Miracles, almost all of the rest of the field doesn't care about it. Post plays the long game, a plan that normally is favourable against control, but the formats other control decks all run something Post is extremely weak to. Land Control. With Lands now moving to Ghost Quarter and Wasteland, the old Pithing Needle trick is even more of a Hail Mary than it was before while all the other decks can just tempo it out.

If the prices where not high, I think post would see only a little more play than it does now. Perhaps more because some people do enjoy the style of play it fosters, but not because it's good. Three people locally owned this at one point, one of them completely foiled. I haven't seen any of them play it in at lest two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

Just to add. I do not think a deck that runs a card in the sideboard is a "X Card" deck. A deck running Decay in the side, like Elves, is not a "Decay Deck". The deck is not built around using that card. The card in question is an answer to a problem, not a part of the decks main game plan. If it was meant to be used in the decks main plan it would be in the main. The same goes for Chalice, Force in some cases or even CounterTop, which has at times been used in a transformational sideboard.

---

So you want to tell me that being able to run uncounterable removal to Counterbalance/Chalice in form of Decay has nothing to do with decks like Storm, Elves, BUG Delver & Co remaining metagame relevant? You want to argue that the decks would be equally successful if they would use other 1-2cc artifact/enchantment removal spells? You deny that running Decay is the sole reason all these decks stand a chance against Chalice/Counterbalance? You want to argue, that Lands.dec would be maintaining its position against Combo and cantrip.dec without the tool what Chalice is?

I can't get why you are so focussed on the narrow "It must be mainboard and the card must be the strategy itself". You could use that point of view and argue that Miracles' success has nothing to do with CounterTop, but with Entreat, which I hope, no one is really doing.

I argue that a deck like BUG, running Decay main, plans to use it in a way Elves does not. Against a deck like say, Nic Fit, Elves is not going to use the card, it's not there for that kind of match as it's a dedicated answer to other situations. BUG on the other hand will use it as a tempo and control play.

I am not arguing anything other than, "A Deck like Lands is not the same as a deck like Stax, both run the same card but do so for different reasons." If you want to read more into that then I intend your welcome to, I am not drunk enough to play games in this thread today and will leave you to your own devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I can't get why you are so focussed on the narrow "It must be mainboard and the card must be the strategy itself". You could use that point of view and argue that Miracles' success has nothing to do with CounterTop, but with Entreat, which I hope, no one is really doing.

---

Because there is an absurd assertion that the format is becoming non-interactive on the grounds that competitive decks are running cards like Decay or Chalice.

When these cards are sideboard answers for certain problems, they are not stifling interaction - there either not used at all, or they are actually preventing non-interaction.

Anyway, this thread is a whole lot of whining if you ask me because legacy is a deeply strategic and highly interactive format - the best that there is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Because there is an absurd assertion that the format is becoming non-interactive on the grounds that competitive decks are running cards like Decay or Chalice.

When these cards are sideboard answers for certain problems, they are not stifling interaction - there either not used at all, or they are actually preventing non-interaction.

Anyway, this thread is a whole lot of whining if you ask me because legacy is a deeply strategic and highly interactive format - the best that there is.

---

I thought that's all this thread has ever been? The thread exists to contain all of this type of discussion to one location. It's not supposed to be productive, it's to get people's thoughts out there and to drive discussion.

I pop in here every now and then to say "Frantic Search is a safe unban", but it doesn't change what will or will not happen. I doubt the discussion I provide will drive many to change their mind either.

Please more unban frantic search.

Makehightide greatagain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Essentially you can group Miracles/D&T/Eldrazi/Lands together as "ensure your opponent can't play the game".

---

I've been saying this lately too. You don't want to give combo free rein, but it feels like the pendulum needs to swing back toward actually letting people cast and resolve spells sometimes.

"stop combo"
"Play spells"

What do you want again?
Magic is all about playing spells, just so happens that you play cards that don't compete anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Because there is an absurd assertion that the format is becoming non-interactive on the grounds that competitive decks are running cards like Decay or Chalice.

---

Because "you can't play spells" cards are promoting interaction ... sure, bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

when these cards are sideboard answers for certain problems, they are not stifling interaction - there either not used at all, or they are actually preventing non-interaction.

---

You don't see an issue if you have to sideboard cards to be able to play at all? It funny to talk about "certain problems" if 22.9% of Legacy decks run Decay and 22% run Caverns of Souls which clearly hint at clear interaction issues in the Legacy metagame on all ends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I can't get why you are so focussed on the narrow "It must be mainboard and the card must be the strategy itself". You could use that point of view and argue that Miracles' success has nothing to do with CounterTop, but with Entreat, which I hope, no one is really doing.

---

Since I'm the one who thinks Entreat is the best ban, let me clarify. I don't think Entreat is why Miracles succeeds, I think it's the ban that allows you to leave most of the format's premier Control deck intact while rebalancing the meta in a healthy way. If the currently competitive BGx decks (BUG and Loam) didn't have to worry about Entreat Miracles, their Miracles matchups go from even-to-favorable to 'solidly/substantially favorable', giving Miracles about the same number of bad tier 1 matchups as the rest of the top tier. Banning Top or Counterbalance (which, given the play patterns they create, are far and away the most likely targets if WotC acts) devaststes Ux Control - you probably can't play a traditional control deck and beat the format's creature decks reliably enough while keeping combo matchups even only slightly unfavorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

No. Miracles is not Tier Zero. Not even close. You want a Tier Zero deck? Look at the Eldrazi in Modern before it got banned. That was a Tier Zero deck. Miracles is nowhere near that.

Though I do often wonder to what extent the format would shift if the prices weren't so obscenely high. There are decks that are pretty good against Miracles. 12-Post, for example, mops the floor with it. However, 12-Post also requires investing in Candelabras and also picking up a Tabernacle or two, which are cards that are very restrictive in the decks they can go into. If you pay all that money for Candelabras, you can't use them in another deck unless you want to pick up High Tide which really isn't that good nowadays. People tend to make their monetary investments into cards that can go in a variety of decks, which is true of basically every expensive card in Miracles. Of course, conversely, it might be that the high prices are what keep people with their current decks and there would be less diversity if prices were lower as everyone would just hop over to Miracles. I guess you just have to deal with the format as it is.

---

Eldrazi is a misleading comparison. When a linear deck is the obvious best thing to be playing its dominance tends to be obvious: it breaks fundamemtal rules of the format in terms of speed and gives opponents limited opportunity to interact. Caw Blade is a far better comparison, since control decks warp metagames in a different way than aggro or combo decks when they're too good. Individual games tend to be skill intensive and feel close, but especially over long tournaments the superiority of the control deck is borne out. Miracles is never going to capture an entire GP top 8, but how many times does it have to get 3-4 slots before something is done?

As for cost being the real problem, I don't buy it. Eldrazi is the (actually competitive) deck that's best against Miracles and its success in 15 round tournaments has been shockingly limited despite that. It has the same problem as 12Post in terms of glaring weaknesses to certian decks/strategies, but people piling in to play it hasn't done anything to Miracles' position as top dog.

Someday one hopes people will realize how ridiculous it is to claim that putting "can't be countered" on a card is anything but bad design. Or that stopping one-mana cards wholesale with one lock-piece is anything else either. Or to claim that decks capitalizing on zero- or one-mana cards "can't compete anymore," or that that'd be a good thing.

I'm not holding my breath.

There's been an increasing trend toward cards that themselves are intended to sidestep interaction altogether starting with Time Spiral block (Split Second), and though few see play in Legacy, the ones that do are becoming increasingly important because there's little one can do against singular cards that blank over half the cards in combo decks like Storm from the first turn.

I don't blame people for playing the cards; they're in the format, and they answer those kinds of combo decks. But wiping out a deck on the first turn (without winning the game, in case it wasn't irksome enough as it was) isn't interactive, and playing responses to which there is definitionally no answer (aside from Time Stop or Sundial) isn't creative, interesting, or interactive. Now that's not a problem when the deck that runs those cards needs to screw around for a while in order to actually put together a win, but the prime offenders in this day and age don't need to do that. They either hulk out right away with equally poorly designed cards or they just keep playing lock-pieces of sufficient diversity that there's no way to break through.

I still don't like banning anything, but it's pretty obvious that the Kantrip Kings aren't worthy of it—especially not right now—and that Wizards is pushing one type of strategy, prison-control, really hard right now, and that's bad for fun, bad for the format, and bad for the game.

It's interesting to see that there's so little consensus about which cards should be banned, and I think it has to do not simply with the diversity of decks people who post here play, but with the fact that people are using different criteria to gauge whether they think cards should be banned. Chief among them, it seems, is whether a card angers people because they don't like to deal with it, which isn't a valid criterion. Enables/forces slow play? Maybe valid. Stifles format-diversity? Probably valid. "I don't like it because it's good but I can't play it in my pet deck/because a lot of people play it?" Not so much.

+1 for unbanning Frantic Search. Seriously, somebody throw that scroll-slinging guy a beverage, or something. He seems really stressed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btm10

Since I'm the one who thinks Entreat is the best ban, let me clarify. I don't think Entreat is why Miracles succeeds, I think it's the ban that allows you to leave most of the format's premier Control deck intact while rebalancing the meta in a healthy way. If the currently competitive BGx decks (BUG and Loam) didn't have to worry about Entreat Miracles, their Miracles matchups go from even-to-favorable to 'solidly/substantially favorable', giving Miracles about the same number of bad tier 1 matchups as the rest of the top tier. Banning Top or Counterbalance (which, given the play patterns they create, are far and away the most likely targets if WotC acts) devaststes Ux Control - you probably can't play a traditional control deck and beat the format's creature decks reliably enough while keeping combo matchups even only slightly unfavorable.

---

I still think, pointing at the 1 Entreat the deck might runs is nothing more than bait, given its Mentor which overtook both Entreat and Jace as the prime kill condition.

The second part essentially demands that CounterTop + Terminus should remain legal that there has to be a Ux deck which crushes Combo and Aggro, aka leaving everything as it is. I see no argument for why an UNTRADITIONAL control deck like Miracles should get special protection, as traditional control decks are not supposed to beat every aggro deck with ease

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce

Someday one hopes people will realize how ridiculous it is to claim that putting "can't be countered" on a card is anything but bad design. Or that stopping one-mana cards wholesale with one lock-piece is anything else either. Or to claim that decks capitalizing on zero- or one-mana cards "can't compete anymore," or that that'd be a good thing.

---

This.

We try to counter the "all your spells get countered" permanents with "cant be countered" effects and people call that "interaction". Disturbing

Maybe everyone playing decks that get crushed by Miracles need to just adjust to the format and change decks. If you lose to a deck, it's your fault. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevestamopz

Maybe everyone playing decks that get crushed by Miracles need to just adjust to the format and change decks. If you lose to a deck, it's your fault. :cool:

---

But what rally beats miracles so hard? Other than maybe 12 post, but now even with back to basics/e-bridge as eldrazi colaterall damage hurts 12 post.. mentor builds can also put some pressure.. so.. again, what deck does really beat miracles tot he ground?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Miagi

But what rally beats miracles so hard? Other than maybe 12 post, but now even with back to basics/e-bridge as eldrazi colaterall damage hurts 12 post.. mentor builds can also put some pressure.. so.. again, what deck does really beat miracles tot he ground?

---

Thats the critical point. The only decks which are supposed to have a really good miracles matchup, get slapped by SB back to basics or bloodmoons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Because "you can't play spells" cards are promoting interaction ... sure, bro.

---

If Chalice is preventing a combo deck from ending the game on the spot - forcing them to find an answer - that does in fact promote interaction. If AD is removing a Bloodmoon, RIP, Ensnaring Bridge, etc, that is also creating opportunities for interaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

You don't see an issue if you have to sideboard cards to be able to play at all?

---

Technically you can play without a sideboard, but if you want to compete you'd better bring one that's right for your meta. I don't see a problem with this. You get rid of side boards and we'd need to ban a shit-load of cards - anything that attacks the game from an unusual angle would need to be banned because it can blind-side the "fair" decks. I don't particularly want to play a "fair deck" format, thanks all the same.

So, yes, I think it's a very good thing that we have a format where we need access to SBs to ensure we can interact with all the established decks.

Think of it this way - if WotC were to eliminate SBs, which format would be more affected, Standard or Legacy? I'm guessing Legacy, because this is a format where we need our more narrow cards in order to deal with the wide range of strategies and play-styles this game has to offer. To me, that's a feature of Legacy.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think this must come down to the facts that I enjoy Legacy very much as is - it's a fantastic game imo - while you apparently do not. It's okay if you are not happy with the state of the meta, but don't try to gain sympathy to that view by telling us Legacy is not an interactive format. I play the game, and if I finish before time I watch the other matches. In my experience, non-interactive games are by far the exception. No amount of hyperbole to the effect of "not being able to play magic" or "not being able to resolve any spells" will alter my experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

If Chalice is preventing a combo deck from ending the game on the spot - forcing them to find an answer - that does in fact promote interaction. If AD is removing a Bloodmoon, RIP, Ensnaring Bridge, etc, that is also creating opportunities for interaction.

---

To a degree sure, but you're not playing a real game of magic if opponent is going to run unlinked threats and cast a card that an opponent (with linked threats) can't win through. I think modern is very much to blame for this idea that "I have a good matchup vs X b/c I have sideboard card Y." The issue is that actually no, you don't have a matchup at all...your SB strat is to not play an interactive game at all. That is of course unavoidable in modern where there is no real threat of LD or meaningful interaction on the stack, which leads to just sideboarding "can't lose to that" cards.

The worst offenders in non-interactive card design are generally white cards, and the practice of SB in Decay (which is also somewhat uninteractive) and draw it to remove that enemy card isn't exactly fun, intelligent, or interactive. The reason Chalice is interactive is that doesn't defend itself and has very real implications on deck design. It's miserable to play against Chalice, but you still have a real game of magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

To a degree sure, but you're not playing a real game of magic if opponent is going to run unlinked threats and cast a card that an opponent (with linked threats) can't win through.

---

What's a real game of magic? I like descriptive language better than emotive language.

Regarding Modern, I never played it and seldom bother to think about it. It has zero influence on my attitude towards Legacy, which I've been playing before Modern even existed.

Chalice "doesn't defend itself"? "Opponent can't play any card in their hand" is a pretty good way to defend your Chalice. Most t1 Chalice games in legacy vs blue decks aren't remotely "real games of Magic", especially g1 vs not-GB decks.

The implications on deck design are minor e.g. nobody is playing Impulse because Impulse is still a bad card. Maybe the % of Shatter effects in SBs is marginally higher. Legacy decks are still priced into cheap spells because of Wasteland + Daze + Thalia and you see those cards more than you see Chalice. The implications are instead on the meta e.g. Storm will never again be a t1 deck as long as Chalice Stompy is the most played deck in the format.

Were Chalice banned, I think Thorn would be a fair replacement, and Eldrazi would be a fine tier 1.5 deck, which is where mindless 'ramp into big creatures and attack with everything each turn' decks belong. T2 TKS T3 Reality Smasher remains 'pretty good.' The deck just doesn't get to also be a turn 1 combo deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

If Chalice is preventing a combo deck from ending the game on the spot - forcing them to find an answer - that does in fact promote interaction. If AD is removing a Bloodmoon, RIP, Ensnaring Bridge, etc, that is also creating opportunities for interaction.

---

Following that logic, Emrakul is an interactive card, because it forces opponents to run specific answers and is removing Bloodmoon, RIP, etc via Annhilator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iatee

Were Chalice banned, I think Thorn would be a fair replacement, and Eldrazi would be a fine tier 1.5 deck, which is where mindless 'ramp into big creatures and attack with everything each turn' decks belong.

---

This is called picking winners - using the banhammer to engineer decks are allowed to be T1 and which are not. Most of us do not want a hands-on approach like this - among other things it makes the process very subjective and arbitrary.

Moving on, I feel like they should unban Earthcraft, and maybe something like Mystical Tutor or Gush.

Earthcraft definately. I would love to see a combo deck back in the format that is green/blue or green and pushes control players to pack things like enchantment removal or trickbind, or pyroclasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Following that logic, Emrakul is an interactive card, because it forces opponents to run specific answers and is removing Bloodmoon, RIP, etc via Annhilator

---

How is dropping a card which ends the game on the spot comparable to casting a spell which allows a game to actually continue? You gotta do better than that, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

This is called picking winners - using the banhammer to engineer decks are allowed to be T1 and which are not. Most of us do not want a hands-on approach like this - among other things it makes the process very subjective and arbitrary.

---

Every ban or unban 'picks winners'. Every existing busted card that is banned is a winner unpicked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iatee

Every ban or unban 'picks winners'. Every existing busted card that is banned is a winner unpicked.

---

Not if they only ban out OP decks. You're talking about banning a card not because the deck is over-powered, but rather because in your opinion that deck should be under-powered.

Saying no deck should be over-powered is not picking winners. saying certain select decks do not deserve to eb tier-one is picking winners.

It's official, Earthcraft needs to come off. I want to use this guy:

http://68.media.tumblr.com/8307cdc31...ricn74_500.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

How is dropping a card which ends the game on the spot comparable to casting a spell which allows a game to actually continue? You gotta do better than that, dude.

---

I am quite certain Emrakul is no 20/20, haste, unblockable creature with shroud to qualify as "end the game on the spot". You can still cast edicts, bounce with Karakas, etc

Afaik, you can "continue to play" your game without your permanents and 15 lost life.