All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

This is a pretty sketchy comparison, because Loam is a naturally more narrow card. Loam only gives you CA in terms of lands and graveyard interactions. It is an inherently more limited engine than 1-mana filters, and it supports exactly 2 archetypes - a combo/prison deck and a midrange deck - and that's it.

In order to imagine your scenario, I have to imagine tempo decks and straight combo decks running off Loam. I Also need to imagine a variety of these decks - Tempo decks as varied as U/R, Infect and Grixis; combo decks as varied as Reanimator, Storm, and S&T; midranged decks as varied as Czech and Blade Control; and a variety of rogue decks too - all powered by Loam.

I personally just can't picture Loam supporting that much variety because the card is just not that versatile. So inevitable when I imagine a format with 60% Loam decks, I do not imagine diversity. It's like trying to imagine a diverse format with a variety of play-styles all supported by LED - it doesn't make any sense.

---

I think you missed part of the question: hypothetical...

Loam was just an example, insert whatever non-Xerox engine in there. My point is that the Xerox engine is the best engine in Legacy and is untouchable for some reason. You may have a tempo, combo and control deck in the format but they all use Xerox which makes Legacy dull and boring. If you want to fix Legacy, you need to start here and it's very easy to solve. Blue circle-jerking just prevents us from actually doing it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

I think you missed part of the question: hypothetical...

Loam was just an example, insert whatever non-Xerox engine in there.

---

There was a time when people really wanted either Goblin Lackey, Goblin Ringleader or Aether Vial banned out of Goblins because it was too oppressive (apparently), so there's your example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

I think you missed part of the question: hypothetical...

---

Yeah, but your hypothetical still doesn't compare apples to apples and over simplifies the issue...

Life from the Loam is a single card.

If I am understanding the use of 'Xerox' and 'Turbo Xerox' correctly (I'm only kind of sure I am, so let me know if I'm off target), we are talking about a group of similar cards:
- Brainstorm
- Ponder
- Gitaxian Probe
- maybe Preordain?

So your hypothetical question actually reads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nielsie

suppose the best engine in Legacy wasn't Brainstorm/Ponder/Probe but Loam and suppose Loam decks would use all kinds of different wincons in different archetypes, you have a loam combo deck, control deck, tempo deck, aggro deck. Now suppose Loam has a 60+% in representation. How long would it take for Loam to be banned?

---

You are comparing a single card to at least 3 cards and asking how long it would take for changes to be made when that single card dominates the meta. I would argue that Survival of the Fittest is a better comparison to Loam as a single card engine. And that was banned pretty quickly after Vengevine was printed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

Yeah, but your hypothetical still doesn't compare apples to apples and over simplifies the issue...

Life from the Loam is a single card.

If I am understanding the use of 'Xerox' and 'Turbo Xerox' correctly (I'm only kind of sure I am, so let me know if I'm off target), we are talking about a group of similar cards:
- Brainstorm
- Ponder
- Gitaxian Probe
- maybe Preordain?

So your hypothetical question actually reads


You are comparing a single card to at least 3 cards and asking how long it would take for changes to be made when that single card dominates the meta. I would argue that Survival of the Fittest is a better comparison to Loam as a single card engine. And that was banned pretty quickly after Vengevine was printed.

---

True, but the thing is, Survival didn't become effective because of Vengevine, it became effective when it adopted the "blue shell" with Ponder/Brainstorm, and then Vengevine made it the absolutely best thing to DO with the "blue shell" and THAT'S when it got banned.

There's also the fact that Xerox isn't an engine in the same way Loam or Survival was. An engine, in the traditional sense, is a card that generates incremental card advantage. Loam and Survival both do this. Standstill does this, CounterTop did this. Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time were also engines. The cantrips, on the other hand, only put you up cards virtually, by minimizing the number of dead draws. You can still call it an engine if you want, but it's different.

The other part is that it's hard to look at the cantrips individually as the problem. If you ban Brainstorm, you definitely hurt the blue stew, but most decks just run Preordain instead and move on. In order to really do the sort of damage necessary, you'd have to go the way of Modern and ban all of the good cantrips.

But I cannot understand the point. If you want a format where all of the good cantrips are banned, you already have Modern. Brainstorm and DRS may be in a lot of decks, and definitely perform better in larger events by reducing variance, but the metagame itself is extremely diverse, and has been in a constant state of flux since Top got banned. The Top 8 of EW may have looked bad, but look at the Top 64. Is there really anything wrong with Legacy?

I love where Legacy is right now. There is still plenty of room for innovation, brews, and new decks to break out and perform well. I mean, two different variants of Nic Fit placed in Top 16. What more do you guys want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

True, but the thing is, Survival didn't become effective because of Vengevine, it became effective when it adopted the "blue shell" with Ponder/Brainstorm, and then Vengevine made it the absolutely best thing to DO with the "blue shell" and THAT'S when it got banned.

---

But Brainstorm =/= Brainstorm/Ponder/Probe/Preordain...

Here's what I found of old Survival decklists:

Rock Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...gacy%20Archive
G/W Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...Legacy Archive
Madness Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...Legacy Archive
Ooze Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...Legacy Archive
Welder Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...Legacy Archive
https://magic.wizards.com/en/article...val-2010-10-28

The ONLY list I saw that included Brainstorm is the last example in the WotC article (and looks like 3 copies made it into one UG Madness list).



Edit: Looks like some piles running Counterbalance as well as 3 copies of Survival ran Brainstorm: Balance Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...Legacy Archive

2nd Edit: This one also has some lists with Brainstorm, but it appears more common that it was not included: Vengevine Survival - http://www.tcdecks.net/archetype.php...Legacy Archive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

There's also the fact that Xerox isn't an engine in the same way Loam or Survival was. An engine, in the traditional sense, is a card that generates incremental card advantage. Loam and Survival both do this. Standstill does this, CounterTop did this. Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time were also engines. The cantrips, on the other hand, only put you up cards virtually, by minimizing the number of dead draws. You can still call it an engine if you want, but it's different.

The other part is that it's hard to look at the cantrips individually as the problem. If you ban Brainstorm, you definitely hurt the blue stew, but most decks just run Preordain instead and move on. In order to really do the sort of damage necessary, you'd have to go the way of Modern and ban all of the good cantrips.

But I cannot understand the point. If you want a format where all of the good cantrips are banned, you already have Modern. Brainstorm and DRS may be in a lot of decks, and definitely perform better in larger events by reducing variance, but the metagame itself is extremely diverse, and has been in a constant state of flux since Top got banned. The Top 8 of EW may have looked bad, but look at the Top 64. Is there really anything wrong with Legacy?

I love where Legacy is right now. There is still plenty of room for innovation, brews, and new decks to break out and perform well. I mean, two different variants of Nic Fit placed in Top 16. What more do you guys want?

---

Brainstorm is very, very different from Ponder/Preordain, and significantly more powerful.

1)Brainstorm doesn't just fix your draw, Brainstorm fixes TWO PREVIOUS draws. Like, if you draw a dead card after using Ponder or Preordain, that's it, that draw was wasted. With Brainstorm, you get that draw back later.
2)It's an instant. Making blue use their cantrips on their turn instead of waiting until EoT and then having a choice of doing that or something else is pretty huge.
3)It brutally synergizes with and increases use of fetchlands, which completely eliminate it's one drawback for zero cost.

Banning Brainstorm doesn't stop Blue Cantrip decks, it just lowers their power level, which is really all any of us want. I like the cantrip shell and options, it just needs a power level drop because right now it's so far ahead of the rest of the format that nothing else is even close to as worth doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

Brainstorm is very, very different from Ponder/Preordain, and significantly more powerful.

1)Brainstorm doesn't just fix your draw, Brainstorm fixes TWO PREVIOUS draws. Like, if you draw a dead card after using Ponder or Preordain, that's it, that draw was wasted. With Brainstorm, you get that draw back later.
2)It's an instant. Making blue use their cantrips on their turn instead of waiting until EoT and then having a choice of doing that or something else is pretty huge.
3)It brutally synergizes with and increases use of fetchlands, which completely eliminate it's one drawback for zero cost.

Banning Brainstorm doesn't stop Blue Cantrip decks, it just lowers their power level, which is really all any of us want. I like the cantrip shell and options, it just needs a power level drop because right now it's so far ahead of the rest of the format that nothing else is even close to as worth doing.

---

I never said Brainstorm wasn't the best of the cantrips. It clearly is. But many people here want it banned so that Xerox isn't the best thing to be doing, and what I'm saying is that just banning Brainstorm doesn't change that... Xerox is still going to perform better than everything else at large events because it reduces variance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

I never said Brainstorm wasn't the best of the cantrips. It clearly is. But many people here want it banned so that Xerox isn't the best thing to be doing, and what I'm saying is that just banning Brainstorm doesn't change that... Xerox is still going to perform better than everything else at large events because it reduces variance.

---

And what I'm saying is that there's a difference between that being a very strong pillar in the meta, which is what BS ban would do, and it being simple the very best thing possible to do, which is what it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

Brainstorm is very, very different from Ponder/Preordain, and significantly more powerful.

1)Brainstorm doesn't just fix your draw, Brainstorm fixes TWO PREVIOUS draws. Like, if you draw a dead card after using Ponder or Preordain, that's it, that draw was wasted. With Brainstorm, you get that draw back later.
2)It's an instant. Making blue use their cantrips on their turn instead of waiting until EoT and then having a choice of doing that or something else is pretty huge.
3)It brutally synergizes with and increases use of fetchlands, which completely eliminate it's one drawback for zero cost.

Banning Brainstorm doesn't stop Blue Cantrip decks, it just lowers their power level, which is really all any of us want. I like the cantrip shell and options, it just needs a power level drop because right now it's so far ahead of the rest of the format that nothing else is even close to as worth doing.

---

This. Ponder and preordain are both very good card, but they aren't brainstorm. I know it's anecdotal but I was just gold fishing a bit with my deck, and my hand was 4 land brainstorm. I cast brainstorm and I draw goyf, Stoneforge, JVP. I get to put two lands back and then fetch them away and now have 3 powerhouse 2 drops in hand instead. Obviously just a goldfish in my anecdotal story, but if you've ever played with brainstorm you know this isn't an uncommon thing at all. That's something that ponder could never do. You'd still be stranded with lands in hand there. It's a crutch that gets the blue decks to have the ability to get very very greedy in ways that non brainstorm decks don't get to be. And with the efficiency of the format, it gives brainstorm decks better top decks simply on the basis that they get to run 2-3 less lands (or even less than that in the case of stuff like RUG Delver which gets to run like 5-6 less lands than the average non blue deck)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

This. Ponder and preordain are both very good card, but they aren't brainstorm. I know it's anecdotal but I was just gold fishing a bit with my deck, and my hand was 4 land brainstorm. I cast brainstorm and I draw goyf, Stoneforge, JVP. I get to put two lands back and then fetch them away and now have 3 powerhouse 2 drops in hand instead. Obviously just a goldfish in my anecdotal story, but if you've ever played with brainstorm you know this isn't an uncommon thing at all. That's something that ponder could never do. You'd still be stranded with lands in hand there. It's a crutch that gets the blue decks to have the ability to get very very greedy in ways that non brainstorm decks don't get to be. And with the efficiency of the format, it gives brainstorm decks better top decks simply on the basis that they get to run 2-3 less lands (or even less than that in the case of stuff like RUG Delver which gets to run like 5-6 less lands than the average non blue deck)

---

When people talk about how skillful Brainstorm is I always think about situations like this. Deck construction, sequencing and opening hand evaluation are skills too. Brainstorm makes these almost irrelevant. The presence of Delve and similar mechanics like "costs 1 less for instant/sorcery in your GY" just makes it even more irritating because not only do you find the best cards but now this card also makes mana. JVP in your example is another such card.

The payoff for pumping cards into your GY has gone up even since Goyf was dominant. I was testing a GWR deck with Tarmogoyf yesterday and they were basically 1/2s unless my opponent was able to cast instants/sorceries -- and they could be using more of those cards to kill my Goyf or delve away for an Angler and I'm still stuck on small goyfs.

There's a whole ecosystem around the stew right now (also identified in the article you posted in vintage forum) with very few natural predators other than taxing artifacts that are much harder to cast in this format than in vintage. Even if you look at modern you see the dynamic of big mana vs. turbo xerox. The top 5 decks in that format play 16, 17, 18, 24, and 27 lands. There is little space in any format for a deck that wants to play 20-21 lands and efficient spells because it will either get blown out by the huge mana decks or undercut by the decks with better card velocity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

When people talk about how skillful Brainstorm is

---

Haha, it takes more skill to play against or without Brainstorm then to play with Brainstorm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

When people talk about how skillful Brainstorm is I always think about situations like this. Deck construction, sequencing and opening hand evaluation are skills too. Brainstorm makes these almost irrelevant. The presence of Delve and similar mechanics like "costs 1 less for instant/sorcery in your GY" just makes it even more irritating because not only do you find the best cards but now this card also makes mana. JVP in your example is another such card.

The payoff for pumping cards into your GY has gone up even since Goyf was dominant. I was testing a GWR deck with Tarmogoyf yesterday and they were basically 1/2s unless my opponent was able to cast instants/sorceries -- and they could be using more of those cards to kill my Goyf or delve away for an Angler and I'm still stuck on small goyfs.

There's a whole ecosystem around the stew right now (also identified in the article you posted in vintage forum) with very few natural predators other than taxing artifacts that are much harder to cast in this format than in vintage. Even if you look at modern you see the dynamic of big mana vs. turbo xerox. The top 5 decks in that format play 16, 17, 18, 24, and 27 lands. There is little space in any format for a deck that wants to play 20-21 lands and efficient spells because it will either get blown out by the huge mana decks or undercut by the decks with better card velocity.

---

http://puu.sh/y8yQQ/445e9c1ae9.png

A lot of good points about these 1 mana cantrips! Man, if only there was a card that countered all of them as they were cast... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

meme

---

Yes, I am operating on a much higher level than you.

I didn't make a value judgement. I am just stating facts. All non-rotating formats are about Xerox vs. big mana right now. Here is a man with a Ph.D. saying the same thing:

http://themanadrain.com/topic/1360/t...nastery-mentor

The point about Brainstorm emphasizing some play skills over others is also not a value judgement. Just a fact. It is unarguably true that you can keep 5 lands, a Brainstorm and one other card on the play and practically not have to fear anything. (On the draw, Thoughtseize or Chalice become more frightening). Or that you can keep Brainstorm in a one-land hand because you are that much more likely to draw it in your next 4 looks which can happen before your opponent's second land drop. In a different kind of deck, or even in the Brainstorm deck but without the Brainstorm in hand, these hands are essentially mandatory throwbacks.

Power creep + consistency = stagnation because on a long enough timeline getting consistent access to the most powerful cards pushes out opportunities for synergies to shine. The question is whether or not Legacy needs repairing on the axis right now and what should be done, not whether or not that is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

The point about Brainstorm emphasizing some play skills over others is also not a value judgement. Just a fact. It is unarguably true that you can keep 5 lands, a Brainstorm and one other card on the play and practically not have to fear anything. (On the draw, Thoughtseize or Chalice become more frightening). Or that you can keep Brainstorm in a one-land hand because you are that much more likely to draw it in your next 4 looks which can happen before your opponent's second land drop. In a different kind of deck, or even in the Brainstorm deck but without the Brainstorm in hand, these hands are essentially mandatory throwbacks.

---

This is the least-silly part of your post which is why it was the smallest brain (thats how those things work right? shrug)
I don't disagree that playing a Brainstorm deck means you can mulligan less, but generally I think that games being decided by mulligans are lame and therefore I am okay with a card that minimizes the occurrence of mulligans.

In terms of deck construction, if you look in the no-brainstorm threads (e.g. Nic Fit, Pox) you see wildly different lists constantly being suggested that are often different from each other by 20+ cards. If you look in the Canadian '6 flex slots' Threshold thread there is currently a heated discussion over whether Goyf or Hooting Mandrills is better or whether the correct solution is to play some combination of both. Maybe you like the first type of deck for being more 'open' or 'free' or whatever but in either case decisions are being made by players which can certainly decide the results of their matches.
In fact this entire dichotomy is a red herring because how much flexibility you have in deck construction is decided not by Brainstorm's inclusion but by how established the competitive version of the deck is. No-brainstorm decks like Lands or Charbelcher are also largely set in stone.

The idea that Brainstorm (or any cantrip with manipulation) makes sequencing irrelevant makes no sense whatsoever. Knowing the top cards of your library by definition puts more of an emphasis on sequencing because you have more information with which to plan out your actions. Entire articles have been written about the timing for casting Brainstorm. The BS/Cantrip decks often have 1 mana interaction/threats so there is often a decision that needs to be made between cantripping, casting a threat, leaving open mana for interaction (or bluffing it), etc. I'm not trying to say that nonblue decks make 0 decisions, but where is the relative sequencing nuance for a deck like stompy (or Zoo) where in most games you just play out the threats in your hand on curve and call it a day?

You can't complain "there is is little space in any format for a deck that wants to play 20-21 lands and efficient spells" when you obviously have no desire for efficient spells (because all the 1-mana 'Xerox' cards are the most efficient spells out there) and there are DS/Delver decks in Modern and Legacy filled with these efficient spells and only 2 fewer lands than your arbitrary magic number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

This is the least-silly part of your post which is why it was the smallest brain (thats how those things work right? shrug)
I don't disagree that playing a Brainstorm deck means you can mulligan less, but generally I think that games being decided by mulligans are lame and therefore I am okay with a card that minimizes the occurrence of mulligans.

In terms of deck construction, if you look in the no-brainstorm threads (e.g. Nic Fit, Pox) you see wildly different lists constantly being suggested that are often different from each other by 20+ cards. If you look in the Canadian '6 flex slots' Threshold thread there is currently a heated discussion over whether Goyf or Hooting Mandrills is better or whether the correct solution is to play some combination of both. Maybe you like the first type of deck for being more 'open' or 'free' or whatever but in either case decisions are being made by players which can certainly decide the results of their matches.
In fact this entire dichotomy is a red herring because how much flexibility you have in deck construction is decided not by Brainstorm's inclusion but by how established the competitive version of the deck is. No-brainstorm decks like Lands or Charbelcher are also largely set in stone.

The idea that Brainstorm (or any cantrip with manipulation) makes sequencing irrelevant makes no sense whatsoever. Knowing the top cards of your library by definition puts more of an emphasis on sequencing because you have more information with which to plan out your actions. Entire articles have been written about the timing for casting Brainstorm. The BS/Cantrip decks often have 1 mana interaction/threats so there is often a decision that needs to be made between cantripping, casting a threat, leaving open mana for interaction (or bluffing it), etc. I'm not trying to say that nonblue decks make 0 decisions, but where is the relative sequencing nuance for a deck like stompy (or Zoo) where in most games you just play out the threats in your hand on curve and call it a day?

You can't complain "there is is little space in any format for a deck that wants to play 20-21 lands and efficient spells" when you obviously have no desire for efficient spells (because all the 1-mana 'Xerox' cards are the most efficient spells out there) and there are DS/Delver decks in Modern and Legacy filled with these efficient spells and only 2 fewer lands than your arbitrary magic number.

---

You are ignoring this part of my post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

Power creep + consistency = stagnation because on a long enough timeline getting consistent access to the most powerful cards pushes out opportunities for synergies to shine. The question is whether or not Legacy needs repairing on the axis right now and what should be done, not whether or not that is true.

---

I really don't care all that much about whether or not Brainstorm or Deathrite Shaman is banned, because those cards are now only a component of a massive soup of cards that streamline deck construction to a high degree. The point about sequencing is that the relative power level of an individual card is so high now that there is a much bigger margin for error in the cantrip deck. You are right that more decision = more nuance, but the decisions are much more forgiving now because there is consistent access to high-powered cards. Put another way, it's only getting more obvious which two cards to put back after a Brainstorm, or which of the top 3 you need to draw off a Ponder and which you can shuffle away with the fetch you have up, because individual cards do so much.

Your reference to the Nic Fit/Pox threads is actually very astute. The reason there is so much discussion is because the low inherent consistency AND lower power level of those decks makes every card choice crucial. Getting a T1 chalice on 1 and riding it all the way isn't the most consistent play, but it is much more likely to succeed because of its high power level -- it creates way more virtual card advantage than something like a Thoughtseize or even a Hymn/Smallpox, especially as more efficient spells are printed.

Perhaps my reference to skill wasn't ideally worded, but my point was more that, even the argument that Brainstorm/cantrips reward skill is being diluted by the power level of everything else. That's due to raw power in some cases and cantrip synergy (like mentor/YP/delve so that you can't really go all that wrong in casting one) in others.

1. Ban Brainstorm/DRS
2. Non-blue/GY combo dominate = more bitchin
3. Ban all enablers
4. Aggro becomes rampant = bitchin never stops
5. Wild Nacatl is banned
6. Welcome to Modern

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

Yes, I am operating on a much higher level than you.

I didn't make a value judgement. I am just stating facts. All non-rotating formats are about Xerox vs. big mana right now. Here is a man with a Ph.D. saying the same thing:

http://themanadrain.com/topic/1360/t...nastery-mentor

The point about Brainstorm emphasizing some play skills over others is also not a value judgement. Just a fact. It is unarguably true that you can keep 5 lands, a Brainstorm and one other card on the play and practically not have to fear anything. (On the draw, Thoughtseize or Chalice become more frightening). Or that you can keep Brainstorm in a one-land hand because you are that much more likely to draw it in your next 4 looks which can happen before your opponent's second land drop. In a different kind of deck, or even in the Brainstorm deck but without the Brainstorm in hand, these hands are essentially mandatory throwbacks.

---

Your oversimplification is just hilarious, I can easily constuct likely scenarios where you loose with all these hands. I would argue all those mulligan decisions are actually much more difficult than your "Do I have Lands and Spells?"-Deck, because ou have to evaluate porbabiltys of what cards you cantrips might give you and so on.

Arguing that non-brainstorm decks are harder to play is just a joke. They might be worse, okay, and therefor it's harder to win, but harder to play? Come on, I can't even believe somebody actually believes this. More options always make decisions harder, cantrips give you a lot of decisions. But yeah, non-brainstorm decks are obviously harder :laugh: #burn

Without having incredibly powerful cantrips to bail you out each decision you make is magnified because you don't have an easy ability to simply go find more removal or another wasteland. You may have less options (sometimes), but each decision you make has a greater impact on the game. Also just because you don't have brainstorm doesn't mean you have less options. Look at maverick. Two different tool boxes built into the deck makes for many intricate lines of play that result in a lot of different decisions to be made, and with many activated abilities you must also learn the art of perfect timing.

Different cards require different skillsets, chalice players need to build a deck that can actually win without playing 1 drops. They also need to play well to win matchups Chalice is bad. Obviously there are tough brainstorms but it's not always 'super skill intensive and im smarter than non-blue players'. There are times you just resolve ancestral recall that also turns a 6 mana uncastable brick into a 1 mana Hallowed Burial, or puts back 2 lands to get hellbent for infernal tutor.

My dad can play Magic with more difficulty than your dad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

Without having incredibly powerful cantrips to bail you out each decision you make is magnified because you don't have an easy ability to simply go find more removal or another wasteland. You may have less options (sometimes), but each decision you make has a greater impact on the game. Also just because you don't have brainstorm doesn't mean you have less options. Look at maverick. Two different tool boxes built into the deck makes for many intricate lines of play that result in a lot of different decisions to be made, and with many activated abilities you must also learn the art of perfect timing.

---

Maverik... I am talking about decks that actually try to win in a non-kitchentable meta:laugh:

Also cantrip timing is totally unimporant... yeah sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rascalyote

Different cards require different skillsets, chalice players need to build a deck that can actually win without playing 1 drops. They also need to play well to win matchups Chalice is bad. Obviously there are tough brainstorms but it's not always 'super skill intensive and im smarter than non-blue players'. There are times you just resolve ancestral recall that also turns a 6 mana uncastable brick into a 1 mana Hallowed Burial, or puts back 2 lands to get hellbent for infernal tutor.

---

Yeah because you actually build your deck from scratch each time... Most chalice decks are 90+% fixed like most other decks, where is the skill in copying a sucessful list?

ok sometimes bs does that, sometime you keep 1-landers with 2 brainstorms and lock yourself after turn 2 and just loose... what purpose do these "examples" it proves nothing

Maybe its time you step off your pedestal, do you really think that MB BUG is harder to play then MB Maverick / Elves?

Resolving one threath and protecting it with spells is not that hard to play out compared to a deck that has a ton of activations.

Don't act like cantripping is uber pro, you look at the board state, you know you have X cards that affect the board state in a favourable way for you so you dig towards them and thats it.

The most difficult decks to play I have personally found are those with both a direct goal and Tutors. What I mean by that is a deck like TES, Elves or Lands have a very dedicated and streamlined endpoint, but these deck tend to have a simple way to stop them. So you have to know how to play against the whole format, not just against a given opponent.

The tutors magnify the difficulty. While they offer solutions to issues, they also offer potential answers to yet asked questions. Looking for the wrong thing without the safety net of filtering for more answers is often a win or lose choice. That might be the only tutor you see all game and knowing the format, if you should push you goal or seek a a pre-emptive response to a known issue is hard. (The reason I include TES is because a lot of these targets are not in your main, so it feels much the same at times.)

There is a skill to any deck, honed over years of testing and trial. If you need proof go watch Sully on his "Best of SCG Live" video. A master-class in how to play burn. Some though are far easier than others. U/R Delver is not a complex deck to play, nor is B/R Reanimator. But that doesn't mean that there are not lines that have been long mastered by others I would never see.

Personally, I think the hardest deck to play optimally in Legacy is Elves.

I am not sure why there is a debate about skill in cards or deck, as this has nothing to do with the B/R list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestalim

I am not sure why there is a debate about skill in cards or deck, as this has nothing to do with the B/R list.

---

"This card is skill testing, it takes skill to use so it should not be banned" is a straw man yes, but common one. Debating skill thus is a proxy discussion that will at times occur here.

People that defend brainstorm seem to think #SkillIntensive is a criteria for whether or not a card is ban worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

People that defend brainstorm seem to think #SkillIntensive is a criteria for whether or not a card is ban worthy.

---

We heared plenty of non-arguments for years on both sides. Putting hashtags in front of them to repeat shit over and over just drags the discussion down the hill. Have we already forgotten nedleeds?

Considering nedleeds and I are both #ATL players, both on #TeamTusk, and sometimes do #TuskTalk together, no we will #NeverForget

#FreeNedleeds

#FreeCaviusTheGreat will get more support.


IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

#FreeCaviusTheGreat will get more support.


IMO

---

+1
Most reasonable and thoughtful post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

#FreeCaviusTheGreat will get more support.


IMO

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death

#FreeCaviusTheGreat will get more support.


IMO

---

+2 suckers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

The most difficult decks to play I have personally found are those with both a direct goal and Tutors. What I mean by that is a deck like TES, Elves or Lands have a very dedicated and streamlined endpoint, but these deck tend to have a simple way to stop them. So you have to know how to play against the whole format, not just against a given opponent.

The tutors magnify the difficulty. While they offer solutions to issues, they also offer potential answers to yet asked questions. Looking for the wrong thing without the safety net of filtering for more answers is often a win or lose choice. That might be the only tutor you see all game and knowing the format, if you should push you goal or seek a a pre-emptive response to a known issue is hard. (The reason I include TES is because a lot of these targets are not in your main, so it feels much the same at times.)

There is a skill to any deck, honed over years of testing and trial. If you need proof go watch Sully on his "Best of SCG Live" video. A master-class in how to play burn. Some though are far easier than others. U/R Delver is not a complex deck to play, nor is B/R Reanimator. But that doesn't mean that there are not lines that have been long mastered by others I would never see.

Personally, I think the hardest deck to play optimally in Legacy is Elves.

---

Well that's an interesting point. I think you could easy see tutors as super-cantrips, because while a cantrip might find what you need, a tutor can be any card in your deck. So they give even more options than cantrips in a way. I think you could argue that GSZ/Infernal/Gamble are actually more powerful in those shells than cantrips actually. WHich is ok, because they have more constraints on deckbuilding.

But honestly, arguing that Elves or Lands is actually less consistent (which is the main argument here atm for their overpoweredness) than any blue deck is a bit of a stretch in my imagination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorphBerlin

Well that's an interesting point. I think you could easy see tutors as super-cantrips, because while a cantrip might find what you need, a tutor can be any card in your deck. So they give even more options than cantrips in a way. I think you could argue that GSZ/Infernal/Gamble are actually more powerful in those shells than cantrips actually. WHich is ok, because they have more constraints on deckbuilding.

---

Super cantrips I can get behind. More options though I am not sure I completely agree with. You get a single look for a single target, but you do not often get to repeat the act many times in a game looking for new answers to changing situations or filtering out bad draws.

While a card like GSZ gives you access to silver bullets it doesn't save you from mana flood, it doesn't save you from finding the wrong half of your deck or missing land drops. I think that the conditions placed on tutors make them individually extremely strong in the right shell yet they are still often less efficient over a long period than small but consistent looks at smaller numbers of changing cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorphBerlin

But honestly, arguing that Elves or Lands is actually less consistent (which is the main argument here atm for their overpoweredness) than any blue deck is a bit of a stretch in my imagination

---

The problem is that your very limited by the tutors you pick. No tutor in Legacy is unconditional. GSZ is target limited, Gamble will just rip out your heart sometimes, Infernal is dependent on a deck structure that is streamlined to knife-edge. I feel like "Consistency" is a red hearing. Your limited by your chosen tutor to do more or less one thing so you make sure you do it well. But when the only limiting factor to playing Xerox is that you play Blue it makes those tutors conditional aspects even more apparent.

So while Elves is very good at what it does and goes crazy if left undisturbed, due to the limitations placed upon it by its tutors it can not run the kinds of interaction other decks can. While it's finely turned to do something the same way every time and quickly, it's never going to have the extra flexibility of a deck like Grixis or BUG, with Burn or Discard main to grant additional interaction. Thus loses consistency to a deck that has more space available for more interactive effects while also having the ability to consistently locate them.

Hold the phone, apparently CotV needs BANNED!!! SCG Legacy Classic had 119 people, and there were 13 Chalices in the top 8, count'em 13! Screw this ban brainstorm talk, can't play my brainstorm with this many CotV coming to town.

Source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thresh84

Hold the phone, apparently CotV needs BANNED!!! SCG Legacy Classic had 119 people, and there were 13 Chalices in the top 8, count'em 13! Screw this ban brainstorm talk, can't play my brainstorm with this many CotV coming to town.

Source

---

Yes, Ancient Tomb is a card that should be on the watch list (SnT and linear prison enabler). Mox Diamond/Aggro Loam isn't all that consistent.

Yeah, I've said it before, the format is binary, you play prison/taxing with chalice or similar (thalia) or you play brainstorm, or you lose.

Between the Open and the Classic, that's alot of non-blue decks. In fact, those are some diverse Top 8's. I'm gonna quote myself here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

There's also the fact that Xerox isn't an engine in the same way Loam or Survival was. An engine, in the traditional sense, is a card that generates incremental card advantage. Loam and Survival both do this. Standstill does this, CounterTop did this. Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time were also engines. The cantrips, on the other hand, only put you up cards virtually, by minimizing the number of dead draws. You can still call it an engine if you want, but it's different.

The other part is that it's hard to look at the cantrips individually as the problem. If you ban Brainstorm, you definitely hurt the blue stew, but most decks just run Preordain instead and move on. In order to really do the sort of damage necessary, you'd have to go the way of Modern and ban all of the good cantrips.

But I cannot understand the point. If you want a format where all of the good cantrips are banned, you already have Modern. Brainstorm and DRS may be in a lot of decks, and definitely perform better in larger events by reducing variance, but the metagame itself is extremely diverse, and has been in a constant state of flux since Top got banned. The Top 8 of EW may have looked bad, but look at the Top 64. Is there really anything wrong with Legacy?

I love where Legacy is right now. There is still plenty of room for innovation, brews, and new decks to break out and perform well. I mean, two different variants of Nic Fit placed in Top 16. What more do you guys want?

---

Ignore the bit about Brainstorm. The last two paragraphs are the emphasis here. Legacy looks to be in a great place right now.

#bantarmogoyf