All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevestamopz

The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

---

I don't know that I agree with that. In vintage you're bleeding slots for cards you must play to compete (thus you end up on the same short list of most efficient wincons); in standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works. In legacy, speaking only of top blue decks, you're maxing out at Ponder/Brainstorm/FoW as the most similar decks have to be - the maindeck similarities completely stop there between say grixis Delver, SnS, and miracles.

You can't really play any format other than legacy with a shared core in such completely different ways - and this is only one competitive core. Other formats have different cores, but there really aren't equally good ways to play them differently and the overall amount of [competitive] cores are still finite. Note also how a core like Ponder/BS/FoW doesn't really dictate at all how a game will be won or lost; you still have to choose a method and insert the pieces - this is also especially true of the Tomb/City/Chalice core. If you break down legacy you will mostly see Ponder/BS/FoW vs Tomb/City/Chalice vs Cavern/Vial vs Loam/Mox; even if this is all that could compete in legacy, there would be so many decks that correct pet-deck/meta-calls would result in winning strategies. That pet-deck can be an iteration of one of these cores, but the fundamental cores of the legacy field you have to plan against isn't really that varied...and the legacy card pool is plenty large enough to provide creative space for a rogue archetype to target the majority of what it would expect to see.

Balanced representations of blue stew iterations is the only way to really push out innovation; it's just never going to happen b/c the other three cores of legacy are too good against blue stew to not play if that's what you expect to see.

@Fox - truly an excellent post. You have described Legacy in a nutshell.

I think a lot of people would be happier to see another Cavern/Vial deck. Apart from the relatively small meta-share, D&T is too prison for a lot of players, and Fish runs CotV and Island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevestamopz

The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

---

This is rich.

You'd think a 2 deck format would quickly become a 1 deck format (unless the decks were a perfect even match). Moreover, I can't imagine everybody playing just 2 decks and that not being 100% exploitable to a savvy meta-decker.

Please tell us what 2 decks you are envisioning? I could use another laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

This is rich.

You'd think a 2 deck format would quickly become a 1 deck format (unless the decks were a perfect even match). Moreover, I can't imagine everybody playing just 2 decks and that not being 100% exploitable to a savvy meta-decker.

Please tell us what 2 decks you are envisioning? I could use another laugh.

---

Yeah that's an interesting one Crimhead. I'm certainly guilty of always playing Deadguy Ale no matter the meta, but I usually do put up decent results. Which at least to me justifies my decision.

I think the format is fine. I think some people just want to ban anything they don't like, rather than think what is healthy for the format. Deathrite is super powerful but it didn't kill Reanimator or lands at all. They had to make adjustments for sure but those decks can still put up results. And I hate True Name Nemesis and Show and tell but Neither are ban worthy.

In fact, I don't think anything is ban worthy and they could unban a few cards. Frantic Search and Earthcraft for starters.

I do agree that Modern is THE format if you want to brew. You can really build a pile that people haven't seen and do well with it. However, in order to do that WOTC had to ban a ton of cards. This is the format that banned Wild Nacatl of all things. And most cantrips as well are gone too and a lot of the really good mana acceleration.

It's so amusing reading this thread. Why do Legacy players feel the need to talk about things they don't even pretend to follow as if they know what they're talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works.

---

Yeah, dude, like that deck that just won the Pro Tour... the one that just mashes together random good cards like Codex Shredder, Lantern of Insight, Pyxis of Pandemonium and the like. You know, just random good stuff. Pretty similar to the deck that got 3rd place that also just mashes together the best good stuff in its colors like Hollow One, Goblin Lore, Burning Inquiry, and Flamewake Phoenix just because those cards are good in any deck. 2nd place was just more of the same with Bedlam Reveler, Young Pyromancer, and even 1 Manamorphose (the red/green version of the cantrip cartel!).

Sarcasm quotient maxed out before I could get to decks 4-8.

You made my day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

@Fox - truly an excellent post. You have described Legacy in a nutshell.

I think a lot of people would be happier to see another Cavern/Vial deck. Apart from the relatively small meta-share, D&T is too prison for a lot of players, and Fish runs CotV and Island.

---

I think it's more that people want to experiment with other engines. Fox's post was excellent, but it's interesting how it almost illustrates the loss of GSZ or Dark Confidant as viable engine cards on their own -- though they do appear in concert with the other engines in the format. 4 BS 4 Ponder 4 Force plus the occasional addition of other cantrips like Probe is so much deck space. Most of the most popular wincons in the format were printed from 2010-2013 -- it's not like you can even play old classics here or exploit newly available interactions with new releases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maharis

I think it's more that people want to experiment with other engines...
...it's interesting how it almost illustrates the loss of GSZ or Dark Confidant as viable engine cards on their own -- though they do appear in concert with the other engines in the format.

---

I think it's less that people want to try new engines (I prefer the term 'core'), and more that people want their pet engine/core in a tier-1 deck.

Such players tend to be extremely biased. In the Maverick heyday, Legacy did not have a competitive Loam/Mox deck nor a competitive CotV/Sol-Land deck. People who think that era was better than today are clearly not interested in diversity of archetype cores - but rather the viability of their favourite core. Then they say all sorts of ridiculous things which are hyperbolic, wrong, and conversational dead-ends. It would be infuriating if I actually cared.

This crowd is also incredibly particular. Elves is an unfair combo deck. Aggro Loam runs CotV, Mox, and Loam. People want a GSZ deck that is fair and doesn't run CotV; and Legacy can never be healthy without such a deck in the top tier.

Edit - I know there are people who are simply bored with the styles of play in the current meta. I have no beef with this, and I'm sorry that established players are not enjoying the format. But when people try to elevate this opinion with claims that Legacy lacks diversity that's just annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

I am suddenly under the impression you have never watched someone work out their Doomsday pile on the fly. There is nothing more time intensive that watching Stephen Menendian work out a DD pile.

I mean people write limericks as he does so to pass the time.

There is a big difference between number of cards and complexity of a choice. Recruiter gives you access to more cards but is in no way as difficult or impactful on a game as getting a DD right. The complexity and pressure of the situation means your forced to work all the angles and plan out ahead. That eats time.

---

I know this is a suuuuuper late reply, but:

I mean, I play DDFT and work out piles (on the fly) fairly regularly, albeit in Legacy, not Vintage where Stephen Menendian piles it up. It's not that hard. Anybody resolving Doomsday should already know what their pile will be before they cast the spell.

I'm not saying DDFT isn't a difficult deck to pilot, but I think the actual level of difficulty is a bit misconstrued from people who care not to understand it's mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

in standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works.

---

Phoenix Ignition has already explained why you're deck wrong about Modern, but this makes little sense as a complaint about Standard either. Now I'm not saying Standard has been good or anything, but its problem has been the exact opposite of goodstuff being the best strategy. They print super-powerful synergies without anything else to fight them with. Look at the most recent round of bans... what was regarded as so overpowered it needed to be banned? There was Energy, a deck based all around the synergies that accompany Energy. And there was also Ramunap Red, which is basically just the newest iteration of Red Deck Wins. Is Red Deck Wins goodstuff now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

And there was also Ramunap Red, which is basically just the newest iteration of Red Deck Wins. Is Red Deck Wins goodstuff now?

---

Arguably, rdw is a pile of the best aggro cards in that colour. There is rarely any synergy. Lighting Bolt is as "goodstuff" as it gets, and most Burn cards are just wannabe Bolts.

That said, in this particular case the offending card was powered by synergy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

Interestingly, Aggro Loam seems to have dropped of the face of the Earth! I wonder, is this because:

1. The deck leaned heavily on a favourable Miracles match and can no longer compete? Or,
2. Loam was primarily played (begrudgingly) by Maverick refugees who are back to Maverick now that they no longer feel beaten into playing CotV?

---

It's still around, especially in the Mid Atlantic region. People here love their Loam decks.

The biggest problem is that Czech Pile is a pretty crappy matchup. The deck trying to grind out opponents with Punishing Fire and Wasteland recursion looks pretty stupid when your opponent has a Leovold in play. The fact that they also play main deck Kolagahn's Command means you cant even cheese them game 1 with a fast Chalice. Fatal Push killing all your threats is also real bad too. If Miracles and Grixis Delver can beat Pile's meta share down a little, then I think you'll start seeing it pop up a lot more. I imagine Aggro Loam would murder that new Miracles deck now that they cant just lock out your punishing fires with counter top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Ignition

It's so amusing reading this thread. Why do Legacy players feel the need to talk about things they don't even pretend to follow as if they know what they're talking about?



Yeah, dude, like that deck that just won the Pro Tour... the one that just mashes together random good cards like Codex Shredder, Lantern of Insight, Pyxis of Pandemonium and the like. You know, just random good stuff. Pretty similar to the deck that got 3rd place that also just mashes together the best good stuff in its colors like Hollow One, Goblin Lore, Burning Inquiry, and Flamewake Phoenix just because those cards are good in any deck. 2nd place was just more of the same with Bedlam Reveler, Young Pyromancer, and even 1 Manamorphose (the red/green version of the cantrip cartel!).

Sarcasm quotient maxed out before I could get to decks 4-8.

---

Here's a reason to come back and read this thread sometimes, needed that morning laugh, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dice_Box

To be honest, Vintage is fun but has limited play. As the format grows in Restricted cards the format itself shrinks. There will come a day where the best deck in Vintage is a Highlander deck and when that day comes there will be no answer. That and right now you are stuck playing a known element to do well, even if you can change up how it works some. (Golden Gun Oath for example)

The most healthy format right now is Modern, Legacy is drifting towards the Vintage situation where known elements are really all that is viable. This is not really a point of debate or complaint, it is the outcome of the formats identity. Ban or Legal. New cards that are printed that cause large scale change either have to be accepted and adapted to or Banned. Since that second option is (thankfully) limited we are mostly stuck with the first on all relevant cards. As more and more cards cause change we have more and more streamlined decks that, like Vintage, become the default options. The only difference is we can have them banned outright, ignoring the scarcity that the option is used.

---

Pauper is plenty healthy. The Tron decks are actual decks (Primarily UR control, UG turbofog and GR Ramp (2nd example)) that do big things but don't get to go T3 Karn, gg, but Tron still gives them filthy-feeling advantage and a preposterous ease in casting big bombs. Cantrip cartel is represented in Mono-U and UR Skred Delver, red and green have traditionally been well-represented in Stompy and Burn but recently Elves and Monoblack Control have had a resurgence and monoW Heroic has become a thing. The only thing the format really lacks is some more really competitive combo decks. Even then, the fringe stuff (Inside Out, Familiars, UR Fiend) has gotten better than the jokes they used to be. There's diversity in strategic archetype, in colors used, in amount of colors used, in engines, in threats. It's not exactly a brewer's paradise anymore, the power level's been lifted pretty high, but the existing stuff offers plenty of choice. A lot of it probably happens because the mana is kinda crappy - you need efficiency, and splashing a color is a huge cost in a way it is in probably no other constructed format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilkin

Yeah that's an interesting one Crimhead. I'm certainly guilty of always playing Deadguy Ale no matter the meta, but I usually do put up decent results. Which at least to me justifies my decision.

I think the format is fine. I think some people just want to ban anything they don't like, rather than think what is healthy for the format. Deathrite is super powerful but it didn't kill Reanimator or lands at all. They had to make adjustments for sure but those decks can still put up results. And I hate True Name Nemesis and Show and tell but Neither are ban worthy.

In fact, I don't think anything is ban worthy and they could unban a few cards. Frantic Search and Earthcraft for starters.

I do agree that Modern is THE format if you want to brew. You can really build a pile that people haven't seen and do well with it. However, in order to do that WOTC had to ban a ton of cards. This is the format that banned Wild Nacatl of all things. And most cantrips as well are gone too and a lot of the really good mana acceleration.

---

I hated basically every banning in Pauper to date, a lot of them weren't really necessary and killed off really fun decks, yet the format is in a way better spot right now than it's ever been before. Modern's apparently in a similar place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Ignition

It's so amusing reading this thread. Why do Legacy players feel the need to talk about things they don't even pretend to follow as if they know what they're talking about?



Yeah, dude, like that deck that just won the Pro Tour... the one that just mashes together random good cards like Codex Shredder, Lantern of Insight, Pyxis of Pandemonium and the like. You know, just random good stuff. Pretty similar to the deck that got 3rd place that also just mashes together the best good stuff in its colors like Hollow One, Goblin Lore, Burning Inquiry, and Flamewake Phoenix just because those cards are good in any deck. 2nd place was just more of the same with Bedlam Reveler, Young Pyromancer, and even 1 Manamorphose (the red/green version of the cantrip cartel!).

Sarcasm quotient maxed out before I could get to decks 4-8.

---

You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core strategy. However, this is modern...so if the Looting core begins to enable multiple competitive strategies (particularly graveyard-independent strategies as well) to the point that a player assessing modern has to have a plan for approaching the diverse archetypal ideas of the Looting core....then I'd expect a pretty quick ban. The reason you can list off new decks proving modern's brand of diversity goes hand in hand with banning off any cards that would give the format central identity (meaning being able to inject itself into the meta-game from multiple different angles).

Modern is diverse in the sense that isolated strategies generally have cards central to their deck's specific function only. In modern and standard you see nearly 1:1 ratio of a group of core cards to one specific optimal wincon/idea of how a win will be pursued. Modern has a growing card pool and more importantly insular strategies, so of course we would expect to see new decks (they are all concerned with their own engine rather than disruption not called discard & removal). Look at the amount of slots Lantern needs to 'do its thing' - the sheer volume of the cards it needs to function are all tied into the wincon; the strength of its strategy cannot be shared. In the case of Hyper-Sluff, the only outlets for heavy employing of draw&discard are already knowable. Keep adding in modern decks and you realize all the format really is, is an agglomeration of essentially random matchups - so yes it's diverse....but in an unnatural way, ensured by doing things like banning DRS, SFM, P-Fire, Depths, Ponder, etc.

As @Crimhead points out my use of "good stuff" has more to do with most ideal rather than only Baleful Strix analogues.

@Lord Seth I'm not complaining about standard or modern, I'm pointing out that these formats are particularly known to ban cards which become cores through use by multiple archetypes. The idea that a [proactive] core does not belong to one deck/strategy alone is not native to standard and modern players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core strategy. However, this is modern...so if the Looting core begins to enable multiple competitive strategies (particularly graveyard-independent strategies as well) to the point that a player assessing modern has to have a plan for approaching the diverse archetypal ideas of the Looting core....then I'd expect a pretty quick ban. The reason you can list off new decks proving modern's brand of diversity goes hand in hand with banning off any cards that would give the format central identity (meaning being able to inject itself into the meta-game from multiple different angles).

Modern is diverse in the sense that isolated strategies generally have cards central to their deck's specific function only. In modern and standard you see nearly 1:1 ratio of a group of core cards to one specific optimal wincon/idea of how a win will be pursued. Modern has a growing card pool and more importantly insular strategies, so of course we would expect to see new decks (they are all concerned with their own engine rather than disruption not called discard & removal). Look at the amount of slots Lantern needs to 'do its thing' - the sheer volume of the cards it needs to function are all tied into the wincon; the strength of its strategy cannot be shared. In the case of Hyper-Sluff, the only outlets for heavy employing of draw&discard are already knowable. Keep adding in modern decks and you realize all the format really is, is an agglomeration of essentially random matchups - so yes it's diverse....but in an unnatural way, ensured by doing things like banning DRS, SFM, P-Fire, Depths, Ponder, etc.

As @Crimhead points out my use of "good stuff" has more to do with most ideal rather than only Baleful Strix analogues.

@Lord Seth I'm not complaining about standard or modern, I'm pointing out that these formats are particularly known to ban cards which become cores through use by multiple archetypes. The idea that a [proactive] core does not belong to one deck/strategy alone is not native to standard and modern players.

---

So many words but so little said. Do you even have a point or are you just rambling?

"In standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works" this claim has been totally BTFO. Saying people missed the point is obviously moving the goalposts. If you suddenly redefine 'good stuff' to mean 'the best card for the deck' rather than 'individually powerful, non-synergy dependent card' then you've destroyed all meaning of the phrase, obviously every constructed deck in mtg history has tried to be as 'good' as possible by playing 'stuff', so what are you even trying to say?

Allow me to rephrase your argument in a different but entirely equivalent way

Quote:

---

I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core card. However, this is modern...so if Faithless Looting (there is no 'Looting Core', there is no other overlap between Mardu Reveler or Dredge or RB Hollow One) begins to encompass a dominant share of the metagame (particularly graveyard-independent strategies as well) to the point that a player assessing modern has to expect to play against it the vast majority of the time....then I'd expect a pretty quick ban. The reason you can list off new decks proving modern's brand of diversity goes hand in hand with banning off any cards that are so powerful that the vast majority of people would play them.

---

Wow, a totally non-controversial and unoriginal summary of why cards get banned in all formats

Quote:

---

Keep adding in modern decks and you realize all the format really is, is an agglomeration of essentially random matchups - so yes it's diverse....but in an unnatural way, ensured by doing things like banning DRS, SFM, P-Fire, Depths, Ponder, etc.

---

"Bans are unnatural REEEEEEEE"

Keep it civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombie

Pauper is plenty healthy. The Tron decks are actual decks (Primarily UR control, UG turbofog and GR Ramp (2nd example)) that do big things but don't get to go T3 Karn, gg, but Tron still gives them filthy-feeling advantage and a preposterous ease in casting big bombs. Cantrip cartel is represented in Mono-U and UR Skred Delver, red and green have traditionally been well-represented in Stompy and Burn but recently Elves and Monoblack Control have had a resurgence and monoW Heroic has become a thing. The only thing the format really lacks is some more really competitive combo decks. Even then, the fringe stuff (Inside Out, Familiars, UR Fiend) has gotten better than the jokes they used to be. There's diversity in strategic archetype, in colors used, in amount of colors used, in engines, in threats. It's not exactly a brewer's paradise anymore, the power level's been lifted pretty high, but the existing stuff offers plenty of choice. A lot of it probably happens because the mana is kinda crappy - you need efficiency, and splashing a color is a huge cost in a way it is in probably no other constructed format.

---

A bit off topic, but I truly think Pauper is going to save Eternal Magic from dying a slow and sad death.

If you like eternal formats and old school cards, but still want to have opponents going forward, I suggest supporting any local initiatives to get it running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

A bit off topic, but I truly think Pauper is going to save Eternal Magic from dying a slow and sad death.

If you like eternal formats and old school cards, but still want to have opponents going forward, I suggest supporting any local initiatives to get it running.

---

Why would you ever want to play Legacy Lite when you can just play Legacy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CptHaddock

Why would you ever want to play Legacy Lite when you can just play Legacy?

---

I wouldn't.

But I'm not 100% sure that we'll continue to get 8+ Legacy players once/month in the years to come. If I want to play anything that resembles Legacy in 5 or 10 years, Pauper might be the best bet.

Also there may be deck options not viable in Legacy like Ponza or MBC, with less saturation of good-stuff midrange and tempo. It almost looks like a cross between Legacy and '94.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these red decks you've listed off all run Faithless Looting, and that would be a better example of a core strategy.

---

You're lucky my sarcasm has recharged.

Faithless looting is obviously the best card in the format and it clearly shows how your original point is correct _{even though that wasn't your point at all}. I mean just check out that deck in 4th place, UR Pyromancer. It also plays the best red cantrip, Faithless Looting. Although to be fair it plays the blue versions of that card instead (Serum Visions, Opt, and Ancestral Vision) and actually runs 0 Faithless Lootings, but that's pretty close to your argument too so let me fix it for you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox (altered in advance by Phoenix Ignition)

You've missed the point of core strategies and defining a format. I would assume these decks you've listed off all run any generic cantrip, and that would be a better example of a core strategy.

---

Ah, once again, right you are! It's pretty obvious when you think about it and take decks 5-8 into account. Two 5 color humans, Abzan, and Jund Death's Shadow. Jund Death's Shadow runs the colorless cantrip cartel of Mishra's Bauble (which is completely homogenizing the metagame with it's 8 total appearances in top 8) and green's obvious best of Traverse the Ulvenwald. Abzan is running maindeck *overwhelmingly best strategy of any cantrips* Nihil Spellbomb, but I think we all know Dark Confidant is basically just a *best strategy cantrip* in a wig. Lastly, the biggest cantrippy deck of all, 5 color humans, uses the most ubiquitous cantrip of Horizon Canopy! Can you believe there were 8 copies of this card in top 8? Metagame homogenization incoming!

So with that all in mind, does that make Young Pyromancer the Deathrite Shaman of modern?

#banfaithlesslooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

So many words but so little said. Do you even have a point or are you just rambling?

"In standard and modern you kinda just play the best good stuff b/c that's really the only strategy that works" this claim has been totally BTFO. Saying people missed the point is obviously moving the goalposts. If you suddenly redefine 'good stuff' to mean 'the best card for the deck' rather than 'individually powerful, non-synergy dependent card' then you've destroyed all meaning of the phrase, obviously every constructed deck in mtg history has tried to be as 'good' as possible by playing 'stuff', so what are you even trying to say?

Wow, a totally non-controversial and unoriginal summary of why cards get banned in all formats

"Bans are unnatural REEEEEEEE"

---

I don't much care to continue to entertain this absurd notion that the use of good stuff was somehow the point worth debating. Standard and modern don't have a meta dictated by cores, they have collections of essentially random insular strategies/decks [you can agree or disagree]. Their deck development is wincon driven, which binds how a deck achieves competitiveness with specific types of wincons/strategies that deck must employ [you can agree or disagree]. By corollary, the development of and banlist in these two formats is on some level designed to prevent interchangeable cores from existing; which further differentiates the meaningfulness of the term "deck" as a way to monitor a metagame [you can agree or disagree].

You have misidentified the key point I initially made which is in response to this sentiment:

Quote:

---

The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

---

Playing Ponder/BS/FoW or Cavern/Vial or Mox/Loam or Tomb/City/Chalice is why a legacy deck can matter, because employing a core is the easiest [though not the only, see Elves/NicFit/BR Reanimator/Maverick/Burn & others] path to competitiveness. When a core is behind it, the deck name doesn't really matter; all that tells us is how it wins, not why it is viable.

It is not unfair to say that standard and modern decks examined only as how they work, without preconceived notions, still generally telegraph the wincon type and what their (usually) single playstyle can be.

With the Faithless Looting core stuff, you go on a tangential attack about Faithless Looting the card vs the 'core' idea of critical mass draw&discard. By itself Faithless Looting is the greatest offender, but you can't really make reliable GY-combo [dredge] or discount from hand-combo without other cards beside it doing the same-ish thing. When you have a collection of cards doing the draw&discard thing *and* an opponent no longer has a RiP-type singular SB card which works (because Faithless decks could enact credible strategies without their yard at all; this isn't the case yet in modern, see Reveler), you would have a core in modern because draw&discard expresses itself in varied ways. That doesn't suddenly make the Looting core the next Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi epidemic; it just means a core group of draw&discard effects can enable differing strategies that attack from different zones...and modern [and standard] ban shared tools simply b/c they are shareable.

To bring this back to legacy, many arguments in this thread are tied to cards being too prevalent as they are shared across multiple archetypes (DRS most recently, shared b/c it is a powerful card). These viewpoints are generally limited to card 'x' at 'y' percentage of the meta, which doesn't really mean much without additional reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

I don't much care to continue to entertain this absurd notion that the use of good stuff was somehow the point worth debating. Standard and modern don't have a meta dictated by cores, they have collections of essentially random insular strategies/decks [you can agree or disagree]. Their deck development is wincon driven, which binds how a deck achieves competitiveness with specific types of wincons/strategies that deck must employ [you can agree or disagree]. By corollary, the development of and banlist in these two formats is on some level designed to prevent interchangeable cores from existing; which further differentiates the meaningfulness of the term "deck" as a way to monitor a metagame [you can agree or disagree].

You have misidentified the key point I initially made which is in response to this sentiment:



Playing Ponder/BS/FoW or Cavern/Vial or Mox/Loam or Tomb/City/Chalice is why a legacy deck can matter, because employing a core is the easiest [though not the only, see Elves/NicFit/BR Reanimator/Maverick/Burn & others] path to competitiveness. When a core is behind it, the deck name doesn't really matter; all that tells us is how it wins, not why it is viable.

It is not unfair to say that standard and modern decks examined only as how they work, without preconceived notions, still generally telegraph the wincon type and what their (usually) single playstyle can be.

With the Faithless Looting core stuff, you go on a tangential attack about Faithless Looting the card vs the 'core' idea of critical mass draw&discard. By itself Faithless Looting is the greatest offender, but you can't really make reliable GY-combo [dredge] or discount from hand-combo without other cards beside it doing the same-ish thing. When you have a collection of cards doing the draw&discard thing *and* an opponent no longer has a RiP-type singular SB card which works (because Faithless decks could enact credible strategies without their yard at all; this isn't the case yet in modern, see Reveler), you would have a core in modern because draw&discard expresses itself in varied ways. That doesn't suddenly make the Looting core the next Eye of Ugin/Eldrazi epidemic; it just means a core group of draw&discard effects can enable differing strategies that attack from different zones...and modern [and standard] ban shared tools simply b/c they are shareable.

To bring this back to legacy, many arguments in this thread are tied to cards being too prevalent as they are shared across multiple archetypes (DRS most recently, shared b/c it is a powerful card). These viewpoints are generally limited to card 'x' at 'y' percentage of the meta, which doesn't really mean much without additional reasoning.

---

Most of your points seem to be debating the semantics of terms that you define and then redefine yourself. If "Ponder/BS/FoW" is a "core" how is "Cryptic/Snap/Serum visions" not a "core?" Because at least 2 variants of UWx control, blue moon, grixis control, all of which are established but also distinctively different modern decks, use that "core." How about Eldrazi Tron, RG tron, and G tron? They all use the "core" of tronlands and a similar suite of colorless bigstuff.

There are plenty of tools shared across very powerful modern decks that haven't been banned. People have been asking for a tronland ban for years but wizards seems content letting in stay in the format. Wizards has been pretty open that their modern ban philosophy has been to keep the format relatively slow and limit turn 3 combo decks. They allow plenty of powerful, archetype-defining cards to stick around though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevestamopz

The reason Legacy isn't a 2 deck formats is because almost everyone plays decks that are strictly worse 75s than the top decks - which most people could sleeve up if they wanted to, they just elected not to.

---

"Ferraris are the best cars. If you drive a car that's not a Ferrari, you are choosing not to drive a Ferrari."

With respect, a lot of the older Legacy players (The ones with larger collections) choose to play weird shit to keep the game entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pinkfrosting

Most of your points seem to be debating the semantics of terms that you define and then redefine yourself. If "Ponder/BS/FoW" is a "core" how is "Cryptic/Snap/Serum visions" not a "core?" Because at least 2 variants of UWx control, blue moon, grixis control, all of which are established but also distinctively different modern decks, use that "core." How about Eldrazi Tron, RG tron, and G tron? They all use the "core" of tronlands and a similar suite of colorless bigstuff.

---

Not trying to be overly harsh here, but those cards aren't good enough to care about. They're certainly reasonable but they can't dictate a format.

If everyone in legacy collectively decided to never play Cavern/Vial, Loam/Mox, nor Tomb/City/Chalice then you'd have a very short list of best decks all on the Ponder/BS/FoW core. The format would look like Delver (mostly grixis), Czech/Blade-type decks, miracles, SnS [pretty sure I haven't missed one]. Right after that list you'd have ANT as a major player. In that meta you could certainly compete with similar decks like Standstill, Aluren, TES, Shardless, OmniTell, Infect, and others that all mostly play by the established norms of Ponder/BS/FoW. From the outside you might find success if you string together a series of good matchups playing as Elves, B/R Reanimator, or Burn (it's gonna be a really short list here). Past this though, you wouldn't really be able to innovate in legacy until a new anti-cantrip core appeared because the pressure of unchecked consistency spanning aggro, midrange, combo, and control will push out most dissimilar, wincon-based strategies. The exception to that rule would be one specific deck strategy in the blue stew core proving to be clearly better than any other (i.e. SDT + Counterbalance) allowing essentially random, wincon-based deck development to resume as they only have to attack one specific deck to find a niche with competitive win percentage.

Modern and standard don't have any consistency-based cores to force everyone else to react to them or else be pushed out of the format. That combination [Serum Vis./SCM/Cryptic] does not unite a credible list of decks such that wincon-based development basically stops being viable. Decks that employ that combination join the field of essentially random, insular decks which is then called a metagame. Now if you were to unban the cards like DRS, SFM, and Ponder (you could go further and unban Preordain and JTMS), then that format would have to develop very focused cores to oppose that kind of consistency. Those cores would likely have to be dominated by other banned cards like P-Fire and Dark Depths*.

Vintage had a different comparison to legacy than modern/standard. The main point was that legacy's current four cores allow for too many specific decks to infer that our metagame is determined by people not playing the best 'x' decks. It's not just that each core is so different, but also the added effect of each deck within the same core operating in such varied ways, that makes diversity [within a very real and definable framework] inevitable. For some reason people have honed in on the term "good stuff" instead of the inference that in legacy we don't really spend that much time predicting/reacting to/developing towards specific wincons so much as a general sense of comparative levels of competitive fitness.

*Modern is pretty lacking when it comes to the interactive axis of mana denial, but I think the with those kinds of unbans would still lead to the exclusion of Urza-tron based deck construction. That's not really the point though; no matter how you color Urza-tron decks, they're all trying to do the same thing and 'go big' with an otherwise uncastable bomb. In other words, a one-dimensional strategy preventing the assembly of Urza-tron translates to winning the game as the opponent. In the case of Dark Depths being hypothetically legal, a more efficient 'go big' alternative would likely be more responsible for pushing out Urza-tron than an enhanced ability for a consistency core-using deck to efficiently and reliably produce correct interaction.

@DiceBox true, but there's a loose baseline where quality of wincon meets "and how does DRS let me get away with this consistently." :tongue:

The closest to a "Core" Modern had for a very long time was a purely reactive set of cards that you could see as their Force of Will. Thoughtseize, Inquisition and Lili. Around that built up a few heavy hitters and then a few less prominent builds. (Obliterator Rock being my personal favourite)

These days that has been somewhat ripped asunder, not because the cards are not all there but because shit like Tron make playing those decks a pain. But Thoughtseize and Inquisition still hold their place. Everyone wants interaction. Well, most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Not trying to be overly harsh here, but those cards aren't good enough to care about. They're certainly reasonable but they can't dictate a format.

---

This is circular reasoning:

"Modern doesn't have any deck cores, because wizards bans them"
"What about these legal sets of cards that are common to different decks?"
"No, they don't count as cores"
"Why not?"
"They're not good enough to count as cores because wotc hasn't banned them"

A huge problem with the 'discussion' going on here is that you are trying to argue 2 completely different points at once. My understanding of your arguments are:
1) It's impossible for Legacy to truly be a 2 deck format because if 1-2 decks somehow became the entire metagame, the cards exist to build another style of deck that could effectively attack that situation. (The way that you choose to phrase this is "one 'core' cannot ever became too dominant, because it inherently has a poor matchup vs these other 'cores')
2) Legacy is somehow the only special snowflake format that has this quality

From what I can tell most people have a problem with 'point 2'. People don't necessarily disagree (or even outright agree, cf Crimhead) with 'point 1'. (I guess Steve disagrees with point 1).

Quote:

---

If everyone in legacy collectively decided to never play Cavern/Vial, Loam/Mox, nor Tomb/City/Chalice then you'd have a very short list of best decks all on the Ponder/BS/FoW core. The format would look like Delver (mostly grixis), Czech/Blade-type decks, miracles, SnS [pretty sure I haven't missed one]. Right after that list you'd have ANT as a major player. In that meta you could certainly compete with similar decks like Standstill, Aluren, TES, Shardless, OmniTell, Infect, and others that all mostly play by the established norms of Ponder/BS/FoW. From the outside you might find success if you string together a series of good matchups playing as Elves, B/R Reanimator, or Burn (it's gonna be a really short list here). Past this though, you wouldn't really be able to innovate in legacy until a new anti-cantrip core appeared because the pressure of unchecked consistency spanning aggro, midrange, combo, and control will push out most dissimilar, wincon-based strategies. The exception to that rule would be one specific deck strategy in the blue stew core proving to be clearly better than any other (i.e. SDT + Counterbalance) allowing essentially random, wincon-based deck development to resume as they only have to attack one specific deck to find a niche with competitive win percentage.

---

This paragraph is only relevant to point 1 (it's only talking about legacy).
You say that if you ban all the good decks not playing BS/Ponder/FoW, then the only good decks become ones playing Brainstorm/Ponder/FoW. This is not an interesting idea and I think most people would agree with you (how can they not, it's essentially tautological).
By the last part, I assume you mean that if (for example) everybody played Miracles, then some kind of Cloudpost deck could become popular in response. I think most people would agree with this as well (although I don't see how this is 'random').

Quote:

---

Modern and standard don't have any consistency-based cores to force everyone else to react to them or else be pushed out of the format. That combination [Serum Vis./SCM/Cryptic] does not unite a credible list of decks such that wincon-based development basically stops being viable. Decks that employ that combination join the field of essentially random, insular decks which is then called a metagame. Now if you were to unban the cards like DRS, SFM, and Ponder (you could go further and unban Preordain and JTMS), then that format would have to develop very focused cores to oppose that kind of consistency. Those cores would likely have to be dominated by other banned cards like P-Fire and Dark Depths*.

---

Now we're onto point 2: You are comparing legacy to other things.

Standard absolutely had this core until the most recent ban: Rogue Refiner and Attune (and by extension Cub and Virtuoso and particularly Servant of the Conduit). These cards were certainly consistency based. When people refer to consistency they generally refer to fixing your draws or your mana. Refiner and Attune are cantrips after all, like Ponder and Brainstorm, and Servant helps to accelerate out your other cards, like DRS. If you couldn't beat the deck with these cards in it then you had a very low chance of winning a standard tournament during the period that they were legal. Therefore, they seem to have pushed other cards out of the format, so the attune shell also seems to meet this criteria for being a 'core' (although I think this is a pointless distinction because you could say this about any top-tier deck in any format)

You say that SFM would warp modern by providing too much 'consistency'. But by this definition of 'core' how does SFM qualify?
It doesn't stabilize your mana, and it doesn't help fix your draws. It's a tutor, but only in a very narrow fashion (and Steelshaper's Gift already exists in modern to emulate the tutor effect for less mana, and that card is unplayable). Why does this count as part of a 'consistency core' then? Is it actually just because it's a really good card? And things like Cryptic/Snap or Mine/Tower/Plant don't count, despite being cantrips and enabling mana and appearing alongside each other in different decks, simply because they are not as good? If this is the case then essentially all you must be saying is that:
1) SFM is really good
2) If you unbanned SFM it would probably be really good in modern and a lot of people would play it
3) People would try to adjust their decks to try to beat the large number of people that are playing SFM

Again, most people would probably accept this argument. But it has nothing to do with the suggestion that modern does or does not feature 'cores' of cards. Your original post laying out legacy 'cores' of BSto/Po/Fo and Mox/Loam and Vial/Cavern makes it sound like your definition of core is "set of cards that work well together in competitive decks". When people identify similar sets of cards in current modern, you say they don't count, and your only argument you have given for why these modern cards aren't cores is that those cards aren't good (compared to the cores that exist in legacy) or that they aren't banned. It doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

---

Vintage had a different comparison to legacy than modern/standard. The main point was that legacy's current four cores allow for too many specific decks to infer that our metagame is determined by people not playing the best 'x' decks. It's not just that each core is so different, but also the added effect of each deck within the same core operating in such varied ways, that makes diversity [within a very real and definable framework] inevitable. For some reason people have honed in on the term "good stuff" instead of the inference that in legacy we don't really spend that much time predicting/reacting to/developing towards specific wincons so much as a general sense of comparative levels of competitive fitness.

---

This paragraph is so hard to parse it literally gave me a migraine. Let me try and rephrase it.
"The legacy metagame is balanced because there are multiple different viable decks that can be built in different ways. [People have honed in on the term "good stuff" because the way you used it was moronic]. In legacy people don't spend time thinking about specific wincons, rather they just think about how good a deck is."

Ok. That first sentence is reasonable. The second sentence is absolute nonsense. I shouldn't even have to address it.
All of the following can be observed on this board:
- People discussing whether TNN the wincon is too good for legacy or is acceptable
- People tailoring their removal to kill TNN the wincon (-1/-1 effects and edicts)
- People tailoring their creature suite (the wincons) to consider the creature suite (the wincons) that the opponents use, e.g. a big part of the discussion on Mandrills vs Goyf in RUG is the benefit vs TNN and Angler respectively
- People tailoring their removal to kill Marit Lage the wincon specifically (e.g. Delver decks playing Dead//Gone)
- Nyx Fit seriously considering playing Sandwurm Convergence partly because all the Show and Tell wincons have flying
- People highly value having access to Karakas because the wincons for SNT/Reanimator are legendary and so is Marit Lage
etc

The problem with a statement like this ("general sense of comparative levels of competitive fitness" [retch]) is that it's so vague and meaningless that it can't be attacked. I anticipate a response like:
"What I actually meant was that people think about the meta in general terms, e.g. 'DNT isn't very good against Czech Pile because it's weak to Kolaghans Command"
"So DNT players are trying to find a different WINCON for the main or the side that isn't artifact based?"
"Wrong again, what I meant was hurdurdur"

Quote:

---

*Modern is pretty lacking when it comes to the interactive axis of mana denial, but I think the with those kinds of unbans would still lead to the exclusion of Urza-tron based deck construction. That's not really the point though; no matter how you color Urza-tron decks, they're all trying to do the same thing and 'go big' with an otherwise uncastable bomb. In other words, a one-dimensional strategy preventing the assembly of Urza-tron translates to winning the game as the opponent. In the case of Dark Depths being hypothetically legal, a more efficient 'go big' alternative would likely be more responsible for pushing out Urza-tron than an enhanced ability for a consistency core-using deck to efficiently and reliably produce correct interaction.

---

- A hypothetical mondo-consistency deck based around JTMS and Ponder would probably one of the best matchups for Tron, see Miracles vs Cloudpost. Or did you mean unbanning Punishing Fire and Dark Depths would kill tron? That is going to take some explaining seeing as Punishing Fire doesn't interact with Tron at all, and Tron is possibly one of the decks most well equipped to fight Depths considering 1.) It has a lot of land tutors to find Field of Ruin or Ghost Quarter 2.) As a more extreme answer Tron can play Blood Sun and not be affected by it 3.) People would probably respond to the threat of Marit Lage by playing Path to Exile decks which Tron is favoured against

- "No matter how you color Delver decks, they're all trying to do the same thing and go small with a bunch of 1 mana spells. In other words, a one dimensional strategy preventing the casting of 1 mana spells translates to winning the game as the opponent" Actually I don't even understand what your point is here. Are you just trying to say that Tron decks are bad? They obviously aren't, just like Delver isn't.

- If I'm reading this last sentence correctly it seems you do recognise that Jace sucks vs Karn. However, I'm not sure what the 'more efficient go big alternative' is. If it already existed then wouldn't people play it already? Does it somehow need Dark Depths in it to work? It seems like you're reaching for something like "tron is BAD, bad means NOT CORE, so NO cores in modern", but I've already gone over this

I can't imagine anyone who actually reads these essays of an argument...

Modern cannot be used as a measure for legacy and vice versa...

#unban mind twist, Earth craft, yawgmoth bargain

I think they are trying to see who can cram the most five dollar words in one post.

https://i.imgur.com/5A0Tv7B.jpg

oi m8s hell is other magic players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce

"Ferraris are the best cars. If you drive a car that's not a Ferrari, you are choosing not to drive a Ferrari."

---

Weak strawman.

I don't even care to continue this discussion, it's so tiring reading the essays and ad hominems in this thread, I just wanted to point out how stupid your comment was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevestamopz

Weak strawman.

I don't even care to continue this discussion, it's so tiring reading the essays and ad hominems in this thread, I just wanted to point out how stupid your comment was.

---

Good thing the "debate" is over. That's also not a strawman, but whatever; can't expect people to know everything.

EDIT: Also, clearly Lightning Bolt is the "core" of Modern because it's played in an entire 28 percent of decks. Ban Lightning Bolt. It's stifling the metagame.

(Fox, I'm on your side in this one.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

My understanding of your arguments are:
1) It's impossible for Legacy to truly be a 2 deck format because if 1-2 decks somehow became the entire metagame, the cards exist to build another style of deck that could effectively attack that situation. (The way that you choose to phrase this is "one 'core' cannot ever became too dominant, because it inherently has a poor matchup vs these other 'cores')
2) Legacy is somehow the only special snowflake format that has this quality

From what I can tell most people have a problem with 'point 2'. People don't necessarily disagree (or even outright agree, cf Crimhead) with 'point 1'. (I guess Steve disagrees with point 1).

---

A 2-deck format is possible in theory. It would require:

• 2 decks with a precisely 50:50 match-up (otherwise it's a 1-deck format)
• No possible deck that preys on both (or even a deck that is unfavoured vs one, but even more favoured vs the other).

Obviously it's a bold claim to suggest there are two such decks (and carries a heavy burden of proof). But anybody who thinks the format is solvable in this manner is invited to name the 2 decks and thoroughly embarrass themselves.

In other news, another good show for Tempo/Stompy:
http://mtgtop8.com/event?e=18145&d=312501&f=LE
I wonder if that is one of the only 2 truly viable decks in this format?
:laugh:

Grixis Delver has proven to be the best deck in the format right now. It is 4% higher represented than any other deck. Imagine if every Canadian, BURG, BUG Delver player just played the best Delver 75 instead of playing delver variants they liked?

What, is it so hard to imagine that the best performing deck with even across the board matchups is actually... the best deck in the format? Lmao. Czech Pile I am told is the next best performing deck and I would happily rate it as the 2nd best deck in the format.

Do you really think it's so absurd that people would voluntarily choose to play fun decks over good decks in casual card games?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimhead

But anybody who thinks the format is solvable in this manner is invited to name the 2 decks and thoroughly embarrass themselves.

---

Imagine getting this worked up debating someone on the other side of the world about a children's card game. Have you never had someone disagree with you?

The best engine is glimpse/heritage druid/nettle sentinel. No other deck can you play 4 Drs, 4 ancestral recall, and 4 tinker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AznSeal

The best engine is glimpse/heritage druid/nettle sentinel. No other deck can you play 4 Drs, 4 ancestral recall, and 4 tinker.

---

#BanElves

Jace and Bloodbraid Elf have been unbanned for Modern today. Looks like JMS is going to skyrocket in price, the reprinting in M25 nonewithstanding.