I was simply referring to your deck building enthusiasm not your achievements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Printable View
I was simply referring to your deck building enthusiasm not your achievements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
Considering Legacy and/or MtG in wider scope, I came to a conclusion that the most I like about the game is Sloshthedark.
Granted, he's a nice, funny, and interesting person, and we share a lot. But the main crux is that he's exactly like a bit younger version of me before I fell into coma. When I see him, I see my past, and as he's a bit few years younger than me, I also see the future that could have been my present, if I weren't to welk in the dusk for the ages.
Why is everyone so focused on brainstorm?
The argument that you can't be successful brewing new things is incorrect. BR reanimator just graced us with its presence and that features no new cards in the past 5 or so years (I'm aware CB is in some lists but its not required). Who knows what else we haven't figured out yet? Hell, the last GP winning deck was a bit of a "brew"...
There are plenty of nonblue decks that are not only playable but in fact tier 1.
I'm beginning to understand now why people don't bother posting here. This is the "B&R speculation", though apparently it should be renamed to have something to do with brainstorm, because it is impossible to discuss any other cards without people collectively shitting themselves at the thought of other cards being ban worthy.
Brainstorm overpowered? That's FAKE news!! Sad
Argument from [False] Authority much? You wanna get into bad argumentation, you lay out no argument to show that the other arguments are bad; and you claim to be some intellectual because you took a couple of fucking social studies courses. Do I walk in here like "Lol I'm a comp sci who works in security and AI, that means I'm a fucking genius"; nah. Because it's about the argument, not the person.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
The people who post that there is an obvious correlation with Brainstorm-penetration over time and the comparisons to other banned cards make a good case. The only people who can't see that they make that case either have no understanding of statistics, don't appreciate that all of the logic for previous banned cards (Cruise, DTT, Misstep) applies to BS in particular, or simply don't want it banned and put a brick wall to the actual arguments being made.
The fact is; you have to refute why Misstep should be banned and not BS. Why Survival and not BS? Survival had multiple deck archs, and Misstep was in fucking Zoo. Cruise was in anything that could run it and it didn't push out Miracles or many other archtypes. Why those cards and not BS? The burden is on you to show why those cards were bannable in a diverse metagame, but not BS when the statistics are *worse*. EDIT: Hell, Maverick of all things was a big deck during Cruise; because it ate the Cruise decks.
I can give a shit either way. But by logical consistency argumentation or statistical argumentation, or just looking at the penetration of brainstorm in the format as a function of time; it's very very obvious that the Ban side has the right of it because the "don't ban" side puts up a bunch of non-argumentation as their counter. Read your post and find a place where you provide evidence or even a logical premise->conclusion that works. You can't.
The only arguments against it is that it would potentially kill the format and "why now if not the last 10 years?" The diversity argument is out the window; because Survival, Misstep, Cruise, and DTT had "diverse" metagames. The "it makes the game better" is a subjective batch of garbage just like the other side. You have no high horse here. The idea that you start your post with "I'm basically an intellectual because I took a couple of courses in social studies one time" is arbitrarily close to being obvious trolling. Not saying it was, I don't think it was; but if someone wanted to troll that's a good first line.
Its interesting, I'm not sure if anyone actually has provided a counterargument to my original case as to why Deathrite doesn't deserve a ban :eyebrow: "BUT BRAINSTORM!" is not a sound counterargument.
There are compelling arguments both for and against the potential banning of brainstorm, but I'm trying to avoid that discussion in general, albeit extremely unsuccessfully.
@dice you want T1 Lackey again? Cool, I'm down for it. Lets get the ball rolling by banning Deathrite.
I'm not for banning Brainstorm, nor am I for a DRS-ban. It's just that people go in circles, like a record on repeat: first there are those who want to ban card A, then people counter this calling for a ban, screaming for card B to be banned. Then, out of nowhere (somewhere) someone yells 'what about card C? Let's ban card C'... Then silence, because card C is just absurd to be named in this thread, so people just stop looking at this thread. After a while somebody calls for card D to be unbanned, but really means card A is OP, and we start all over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by rlesko
I think your arguments make sense, rlesko, but at the end of the day it won't make any difference. Calling for a ban for one card or the other will make people lose their minds. It really doesn't matter what you want, in the end everything stays the same. Just try to enjoy the game, and remember it could be worse (looking at you, Modern)
I think all the"cantrip" creatures should be banned. So Tarmogoyf, Snapcaster Mage, Young Pyromancer, Deathrite Shaman, Delver of Secrets, etc. Cantrips seem fine as long as they aren't powering up dumb OP creatures. I think Emrakul and Griselbrand should be banned too. I don't mind show and tell but when you show and tell in a: "LOL I win now" creature it seems dumb. What if you could show in tell in some creature that immediately made the opponent lose the game? Obviously OP and would be banned. How far are Emrakul and Griselbrand from this? Like 5%?
These bannings are excessive and brainstorm basically powers all of these strategies, but for me, I would miss the consistency that Brainstorm brings.
I think it's silly to have miracles be a deck to beat for years, then people respond to it by going into Abrupt Decay (and deathrite shaman because it slots into the same deck most of the time) then call for a Deathrite Shaman ban. Obviously Shaman is too good and shouldn't have been a 1/2 or be able to be cast off black or produce any colour but there are other cards in magic that were 'mistakes' and we just have to live with them.
I'm of the opinion that nothing should be banned and we should bring back older cards like Earthcraft, MindTwist, Goblin Recruiter and Survival (and then ban it again if it's too good which I highly doubt). If deathrite got banned I'd hope they took something from miracles as well (like Terminus) but again I'd strongly prefer nothing got banned as I am having fun with the format and think it's quite good despite it not being 100% perfect.
All the anti-Brainstorm and anti-DRS people need to get together and realize that you all have a common enemy you should spend your time complaining about: fetchlands. They enable pretty much everything that's been bitched about in the last couple pages. Brainstorm does a good Ancestral Recall impression because you constantly have the ability to shuffle away the chaff. Without the ability to shuffle your library on a whim, the card is much less impressive. The only reason DRS sees so much play is because fetchlands make it a bird of paradise that's actually good to draw in the late game. A couple years ago while DRS was getting banned in modern and dominating legacy, it was seeing absolutely zero play in standard, and that's because the other abilities are nice, but not good enough when you don't have a way to have it reliably be a mana dork. Hell, even the creep of blue decks being able to play whatever other colors they want has more to do with fetchlands making perfect mana than anything DRS has ever done. It would be a lot more interesting if greedy blue decks had to go back to something like Flood Plain instead of Flooded Strand. Would it be worth slowing down a turn in order to enable greedy mana? That would probably help open the door for more aggro decks that could punish the slower mana.
For the record, I don't want to see any of these cards banned, I just feel like a lot of these arguments are missing the forest for the trees. There's a common enabler that, to me, seems to be causing all the dissatisfaction. I do agree with the premise that if Brainstorm had been printed in Kaladesh and instantly had the kind impact that it currently has, it would probably be axed like Cruise and Dig. I'm fine with DRS being one of the best cards in the format, because while it's super powerful, it's just a creature and is an extremely interactive card that leads to a lot of interesting gameplay, especially when faced against something like Snapcaster Mage.
Flood Plain wouldn't be playable because Wasteland would be even better. Lands that enter the battlefield tapped are very difficult to justify in a fast format. Fetchlands provide a buffer against Wasteland in that you can play them out uncracked and crack when you're able to pay for whatever 2 CMC or 3 CMC spell you want to cast that turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephemeron
Fetchlands are definitely powerful, but banning them would result in the need for players to run full playsets of duals to fix mana issues. Fetchlands actually play a very valuable role in keeping the format more affordable.
Sure is a lot of complaining about utility cards in this thread. Can't say I remember the last time a T1 "land, utility card, pass" shut me out of the game.
Still haven't heard a response to my query as to whether having a strategy—not a singular card, especially not one that allows a large number of decks to exist—saturate the format constitutes the real problem. (Fortunately, Legacy doesn't have that problem.)
When I hear people say there's no merit to anti-anti-Brainstorm arguments or that fetchlands are overpowered, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Another thing I'll say again (because if I've said it once, I might as well say it a trillion times): banning the most powerful, most ubiquitous card in a format doesn't solve the format. Power and popularity are—by nature—relative.
Legacy does indeed that that issue, Turbo Xerox is that problem. As for debating it, look if your views haven't changed at this point there not going to. Like mine aren't. There really is no point I feel in arguing. The energy spent debating this would be better spent masturbating. That's far more enjoyable and at least someone wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I am heavily disappointed that some harsh bloke offends me and his comment isn't deleted. There is no reason to become personal but some people simply can't help themselves.
If you want to talk about my university education you can message me, com sci. Until then you should read posts carefully because you might misunderstand them with all the
salt in your systems. But, you know what, in a discussion it starts with the person -sure, arguments count- but the person has to provide them. I didn't try to but to point out how
flawed and pointless some contributions are.
I'm out.
Say what now?Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
Didn't liken tescrin's callout, it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatto
I reported the post as well. I'm not sure why the mods don't suspend accounts of members who repeatedly write inappropriate personal or general comments. Discourse should be directly related to the subject at hand and unrelated direct negativity should get a warning followed by a suspension of the account if it happens again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
People obviously get upset and inappropriately blow off steam but everyone knows the few individuals who make threads toxic. I have fallen into the trap of responding to this negativity and ratchet up the negativity, which always has resulted in the posts being deleted. Hopefully, a member can simply report the initial thread and then the problem will be addressed.
+1.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
Two things. The fist post that was double reported is gone. The second post, that Cabal is bitching about, was fine.
As for people, I can't and won't talk about what is said behind closed doors. If you wish to say something though, feel free to pm a staff member. We are always open to looking into things. Bitching in a thread like this won't change a thing of we don't see it.
Deathrite is definitely the best 1-drop ever, but I don't think it's that egregiously overpowered in a world where casting Terminus and Griselbrand for one mana are also tier one strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by rlesko
The biggest problem with Misstep and the Delve draw spells (relative to Brainstorm) is that the play patterns they create are problematic for more people than the play patterns created by cantrips in and of themselves. This is obviously a subjective criterion, but it both seems to be the operative criterion when it comes to banning decisions and lots of people actively enjoy the Xerox approach, despite the tone of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by tescrin
I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be with this remark. Want to know what's also a utility card you can play on turn 1 that doesn't shut the opponent out of the game? Ancestral Recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
It's strange to be no longer the only one pointing to the fact, that the set of cards enabling all the shenanigans with Ponder, Brainstorm, DRS, Jace, SDT, etc are the obvious targets, if people are pissed of about Legacys card-quality engines. However, pointing at it is pretty pointless, as the anti-Brainstorm camp doesn't want to lose THEIR card-quality engines and perfect 3/4 color manabases in order to bitchslap the whole cantrip galore. They just want to see Brainstorm banned to eliminate certain decks from the format, create a further streamlining as a result and then end up bitching about how good Ponder/Preordain/SDT + Fetchlands are in a post-Brainstorm metagame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephemeron
I see it the same way as Robert: Legacy is far the point where "color" and its identity matter at all. No one is forced to make any tradeoffs in terms of color if 3- to 4-color decks are pretty much the status quo and you can splash anything anywhere thanks to Fetchlands, Duals and cardselelction. As long as a every mana source gives you access to 2+ colors, we don't need to talk about blue, black, red, green or white decks/cards anymore.
We also don't need to talk about the annoying topic of percentage of card X in the format, bitching about the numbers of Misstep, Survival and Brainstorm as justification for a ban, if it comes from hypocrits who don't want to talk about the 90%+ standard of Fetchlands at the dame time. Its pretty obvious for every non-troll, that penetration alone isn't a gauge for a bad format.
"Fetchlands are broken, they can be played in every single deck that uses any colour of mana, irrespective of archetype or game plan.
Brainstorm and DRS? Nope, they're totally fine, not an issue there at all."
And you wonder why why no one takes this argument seriously.
Re: Fetchlands
I think we can all agree that, regardless of the merits of discard being good or cantrips or what have you, a format where wasteland is $100+ is not desirable.
This. All of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
My point was that T1 Brainstorm rarely translates into the end of the game. Or if it does, more often than not it does in the same way that T1 DRS, T1 Chalice, or T1 Thoughtseize does; it puts you ahead of your opponent, sometimes by a wide margin. That's what it's there for. It's worth pointing out that those cards are significantly more aggravating to face than Brainstorm is, and at least two are either easier to cast or on par with Brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
Regarding Ancestral, it's a card that genuinely does translate into T1 wins very often. And yes, it's both a utility card and (likely) the third-strongest card ever printed (behind Contract and Lotus). With that said, the card's power (lol) isn't the only reason it's banned. But if you want to argue that a) the sole reason that Ancestral is banned is its power, and b) the raw power of Brainstorm makes it bannable for the same reason, I disagree. My point wasn't that utility cards by definition shouldn't be banned; it was that people are up in arms over cards that are boons to the format for their utility and the deckbuilding space they create when those cards aren't the aggravating, "overpowered" things that KO people. Ancestral is pretty close to being the latter, utility card or not.
As an aside, saying that a card has been part of the format since the beginning and thus doesn't deserve a ban is a valid argument, and Recall doesn't meet that criterion. I wasn't calling for any unbans.
Just asking for clarification. Are you stating that you feel a cards date of print is a possibile defence against its removal from the format or am I missing something? Please fill me in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
Totally missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevestamopz
100% disagree with you. I don't have a pet card. I am not bitch-slapping anyone. You saying, "eliminate certain decks from the format" is a distraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Deathrite is a PITA just like TNN. However, they (DS & TNN) are not an instant response (BS) to almost every single card in magic.
Brainstorm as an instant is broken in Legacy. That is my entire argument against Brainstorm.
You are free to show me a top tier S&T, Miracles, Tempo list without the option to exchange dead cards in hand with fresh ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
I have no idea on what kitchen table you play, if people around you use Brainstorm mainly to respond to spells, rather than playing it in their own main phase to optimize their hand & mana. If Brainstorm was a Sorcery, it would fix/change nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Quoting you for the win; I would love to see brainstorm as a sorcery...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
My only point is that brainstorm as an INSTANT, is broken.
I am not sure anyone "Wins" anything posting in this thread.
Are you joking? Because otherwise this statement is downright absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
To a point, I do. That said, I'm not interested in defending every card that's currently Legacy legal, either, though I personally don't like bans on principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
What I like about Legacy is that it gives old cards (like Brainstorm) a chance to shine outside of what became Vintage. I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment (at least partially) drove the creation of the format. Assuming the precept that Brainstorm is too strong a card for Legacy (I don't think this, but for the sake of argument), I feel like the problem is less that Brainstorm is too powerful for the format and more that cards printed since the inception of the format either have increased the power of Brainstorm or have failed to answer it; when they have, the repercussions have been detrimental to the format. That may—ipso facto—be an argument against Brainstorm. But Wizards has a long track record of making foreseeable errors in design and of trying to put a lid (bans or blanket-hosing) on its errors rather than design proper work-arounds or, frankly, do its job the first time around. The format's also older than many of the cards that I've seen indicted on this thread and elsewhere (rightly or wrongly), which I feel indicates that the problem is with the output, not the input.
My general experience with bans is that they're bad for players and bad for the game. I've gotten screwed out of Modern thrice, and I have no interest in getting into it again. That doesn't excuse Wizards's slipshod design, though; I think it's a fundamental problem that they'll design Standard superstars that are transparently gimmicky and convoluted yet unplayable and that they'll design cards that an idiot could tell would cause problems (in part, this is what separates Legacy from Vintage, though I think they can be excused for not knowing how the game would function before it hit the shelves in '93).
I also think that the degree to which sleeping dogs have lay is pertinent to the discussion. Banning something after so long a time without any immediate stimulus hurts players.
I hope that cleared some stuff up, and I'd be glad to discuss it further. Didn't mean to talk your ear off!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
It's in the way Lemnear suggest to play Brainstorm, see the bold part. Makes sense, but is in my opinion not always the case when playing a Brainstorm-deck. The best Brainstorm is cast whenever it's needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Seth
The statement was twofold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatto
First of all the mainphase Brainstorm more common than the react-to-spell-Brainstorm in tournaments. Second, and thats even more important, if it was a Sorcery, people would still play it as a 4-off in any deck possible because the effect is still amazing as a Sorcery as we can see on Jace the Mindsculptor.
To claim that Brainstorm powerlevel is tied to "responding to spells" is just absurd, given that Ponder is a format staple and no one makes a fuzz about the fact that Ponder can't hide cards from discard. You sleeve up Brainstorm for the cardselelction and not as anti-discard-tool, ergo the card would see no less play if it was a sorcery.
Ok. I disagree. I feel like if a card is causing issues in the format, be it Birds of Paradise or Jace, Vryn's Prodigy it should be removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I feel like the way you wrote your post your argument is less about age and more about your thoughts on the card being argued. That's fair, but I am over debating the finer points of Brainstorm myself so I will leave the rest of your comment be.
I see we're going off the deep end into conspiracy theories as to why people would want brainstorm banned.
Not like years of statistics have seen cards banned for much less, and no matter brainstorm is the only cantrips of the three "good" ones that allow you to reshuffle 2 cards from your hand away , making you virtually draw 3 and dodge discard at instant speed.
Ancestral is balanced because it only fuel decks and reduce variance guys. Where do you draw the line?
Banning the fetches would be the biggest change to the game since the creation of formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Mcdonalds
Fixed that for you. Banning fetches would be a big change, but lets not get out of hand here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmlima
Bigger changes that occurred after the creation of formats are:
Requiring sleeves
Mythic Rares
Foil Cards
Adding the stack, removing interrupts (Moo!)
Removing combat damage stack (Boo!)
REL levels
New Mulligan rule
No trading allowed limited
Removal of power level errata
Global warming is accepted by the scientific community at large
No worries! I guess another way to put it is that the format is what it is, it's gotten to where it is through decades of printings and card interactions, and problems usually arise from synergy between cards more than they do from singular cards (obviously, there are exceptions). So if a set drops, and it's got a card in it that busts older cards in combination, I'd rather see the newer one go than the old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Of course, that's no way to sell packs, so something tells me that philosophy won't catch on. A man can dream.