Shall I create a separate poll that addresses the whole Brainstorm issue?
Printable View
Shall I create a separate poll that addresses the whole Brainstorm issue?
Except Chains isn't maindeckable (barely even sideboardable, if anything, a few decks run it as 1-of) and costs 200$ a piece (to answer a 2$ common). If Chains was the answer, it would see way more play.Quote:
Originally Posted by pointicus
Call me when they print a :1::b: Chains guy with Deathtouch or other combat-relevant abilities that you can run in your main deck.
For what? All it would result in would be more flaming until the mods close it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdvermampfa
I don't understand why removing Brainstorm couldn't increase the number of "low variance" decks, not decrease it. Couldn't making blue-based decks less powerful, result in a more varied meta?Quote:
Originally Posted by apple713
I think you are misinterpreting what we mean by "variance". It doesn't mean variation or variety of decks, it's a statistical measure and what we mean is that Brainstorm reduces the variance of magic games because decks playing the card have much more consistency. They are less likely to lose games simply because of mana screw or flood because they have the ability to see more cards. Personally, I think that's a fantastic thing to have in the game. It's a game, it should be fun and interesting, the less legacy games are decided by luck the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by davelin
I have never heard an explanation for why a card as valuable as Brainstorm should be banned except for "I hate blue decks".
There's something maybe to be said about the instant speed doing nasty things to discard, but good cantrips absolutely should stay in blue.
They just need to print more cards like Looting and Green Sun.
I understand what you mean by variance. I also 100% agree that Brainstorm decks are much more consistent than non-Brainstorm decks in general. Couldn't removing Brainstorm level the playing field in terms of consistency between blue and non-blue decks thus increasing the number of viable decks in the meta?Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
You already stated reason yourself - blue decks with Brainstorm are significantly more consistent than non-blue decks which do not have said tools available. What's the the point of running decks without Brainstorm then? There's little to no drawback to NOT running Brainstorm, especially since the hate against it doesn't do jackshit. It's already the most-played card by a wide margin for the reasons you stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
We'll never know unless a bunch of people would agree to run a large-scale field test with various decks under the assumption "Brainstorm is banned" and see how deck viability changes. Everything else are just speculations with a very shaky base since neither arguments can be proven right without hard data.Quote:
Originally Posted by davelin
Call it "The Brainstorm Experiment" or whatever and see how it goes. But I doubt that it would get enough people to get any valuable data out of it.
What it does is good for the game; it's what makes the game fun. If you and others (and wotc) think that consistency is the big problem between blue and non-blue then we could make new cards (Like GSZ, which was extremely effective) that provide similar functionality to non-blue decks. How can you hate a color so much that you'd want to hurt the entire game just so that less people play blue decks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Brainstorm is currently overrepresented mostly because of TNN. Also, while i don't particularly like the card and i find most of the arguments defending it retarded (SKILL INTENSIVE CARD VARIANCE WOW, blue has 10 thousand cantrips, play portent and it's way more skill intensive, just weaker in power level, by that definition a card that perfectly stack your deck is skill intensive and reduce variance no shit, it's all about the power level), TNN is just an horrible card to play with, against, or even watch. I seriously can't stand this piece of shit designed card. Goyf was bad already especially since it rapidly developed in Goyf standstills (not that this matter anymore with cards like DRS and others making goyf much much weaker that it once was), but this is ten times worse.
Hyperbolic much? Having a thought experiment about Brainstorm doesnt mean we hate blue or want people to have less fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post777433
Now, the question is, would this actually make non-blue decks more viable?
...when you thought it couldn't get any worse....Quote:
Originally Posted by EpicLevelCommoner
Its safe to say blue needs nerfed it shouldnt have the best planeswalkers the best consistancy the best beaters and the best hate in the form of counter magic the color pie may as well not exsist blurring the lines is one thing but go blue or go home is not a healthy meta the poll should be does blue need nerfed or not crying out over one card will never get a reaction once the best tnn deck is tuned something will need done the same way mental misstep got the hammer. I was only curious what a meta would look like without brainstorm I adore putting two thunderous wraths on top then casting portent targeting my opponent in my u/r delver and wouldn't want to see that go away
I feel like there would be much better hate cards for Blue drawing in existence if Brainstorm were a legitimate problem. I mean, I'd love love love to see a 2/1 WB creature with 'Hexproof, Chains of Mephistopheles' scrawled across its text box, because it would give one the means of gunning for card drawing in a meaningful way - but honestly it kind of seems like, if it were going to happen, it would have already.
The raw effect of simply having more game pieces than your opponent is virtually always better in every game you can think of (please maybe don't introduce corner cases where less is more; YES this is a generalization, but I don't want to go down a totally different rabbit hole). In The Beginning - it was well-known that Ancestral Recall was entirely unfair, but Dr. Garfield and Co. did not envision anyone taking the game seriously enough or having as much popularity as it does - or even that people would have the means or drive to acquire multiples (even before the 4-of rule was a rule). I could cite sources but it's all just sort of 'out there'; see the "Is This Game Skill or Luck-Based" thread for a video that expresses similar sentiment direct from Garfield himself.
Brainstorm is the cheapest, most playable, and most widely used card as a means to this end. For all the decks that it works well with, and all the plays it enables -- and even for as often as the Eternal community bemoans WotC's ability to print for the format -- I find it incredibly unlikely that such an effect would be allowed to exist without some kind of uber-hate or banning occurring long before now. That may be an error in logic along the lines of an appeal to authority ("if they don't have a problem, neither do I") but given their awareness of what card drawing means to Magic, I really strongly doubt that Brainstorm is nearly as damning as people make it out to be.
Yes - it works wonders with Miracles, and sometimes one simply topdecks all the things after casting it and stacking their deck appropriately. There's an amount of Chicken v. Egg that can be argued in any of these cases, similar to Vengevine + SotF or S&T + any creature with CMC 4 or higher. Card drawing is a little harder to shoehorn in this way, though; the effect is so basic that it doesn't really synergize with just one particular strategy. It *could* be used in concert with Miracles, sure, but it can also be used to bolster aggro-control or combo - and its color restriction isn't exactly a Big Fucking Deal. Lots of decks could make room for card drawing, as they do for other effects. How often does someone start on the early stages of brewing and go, "This deck could use Effect X. What are my four weakest cards?", and then turn around and include a format staple? How often does one simply analyze their pile and then realize that it needs more acceleration/removal/discard/burn, and then turn around and just add Deathrite Shaman/Swords to Plowshares/Thoughtseize/Lightning Bolt? What sets card drawing and Brainstorm apart from that decision making process? It's just another fundamental game effect.
For the love of God and all that is holly, USE FULL STOPS MAN!Quote:
Originally Posted by uncletiggy
lets say your brainstorm was a tutor instead. would tutoring into the perfect card make that skill for including that perfect answer in the deck or luck for drawing it? Its skill. You built a deck that functions at a higher consistency than other and has answers for a wide range of situations. Unfortunately all the good tutors have been banned and brainstorm is next in line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
This is a great explanation to under waters' misunderstandingQuote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
The goal shouldn't be to take power away from blue, it should be to increase power of other colors. You can't just ban brainstorm and say "ok we're good now". You would also have to take away ponder and preordain.Quote:
Originally Posted by davelin
The better solution is to print cards in the other 4 colors that improve consistency like brainstorm does for blue.
They could test this on online magic where they hold a tournament with experimental ban lists. WOTC seems like a poorly ran company so it's unlikely we'll get much help from them. They have little quality control for printing cards, they have an even smaller amount of internal testing before they release cards, and they have almost 0 support for legacy nor do they care to. They have monetized mtgo into something terrible and seemingly pointless. Its incredibly unpolished, has poor interface, and well the list could go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
They need a new CEO of WOTC that is a professional and can shape up the company. For being one of hasbro's largest income contributors its run very poorly.
[QUOTE=TsumiBand;777441]I feel like there would be much better hate cards for Blue drawing in existence if Brainstorm were a legitimate problem. I mean, I'd love love love to see a 2/1 WB creature with 'Hexproof, Chains of Mephistopheles' scrawled across its text box, because it would give one the means of gunning for card drawing in a meaningful way - but honestly it kind of seems like, if it were going to happen, it would have already.[QUOTE]
Just one moment here.
Are you discussing the lack of interactivity of TNN in this thread while suggesting Hexproof-Creatures, that hate out half of the metagame?
not played in nearly every deck that doesn't play Chalice of the Void on 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by TsumiBand
It's the same dichotomy that exists with Null Rod in Vintage. Very powerful but you are giving up the most powerful accelerants to hedge and in many cases it just isn't worth it.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Saying "I don't want Brainstorm banned because I like the card" is fine, it's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just like I can say, "I want Necropotence unbanned because I like the card" and despite the incredulity of my opinion it's still my opinion. You can run out ideas like, 'every deck will run necro' etc. which are the same arguments being thrown at your beloved cantrip.
The skill intensive line is a favorite one of mine because it implies that one of the ban criteria is that a card that's hard to use should be allowed to exist because of it's depth. Sweet! Meet Yawgmoth's Will! Brainstorm is hardly the most skill intensive card in the format but your heroes at SCG would have you believe that. In fact sans Brainstorm cards like Ponder and Preordain would have to stand alone and the decision making required to choose would be tougher (if you didn't have a Brainstorm in hand to scoop the other 'good card'). You'd actually have to consider the math involved with shuffling and getting a 4 of in the blind. Having a Brainstorm makes those cards trivial to use.
Brainstorm makes targeted discard (an as skillful magic task as resolving a Brainstorm) a miserable effort in the middleing turns (2-4).
Brainstorm supercharges other powerful cards like Stoneforge Mystic, Lion's Eye Diamond, <all fetches>. This is the pitiful argument charged at Survival (which by the way ... is really good with ... Brainstorm).
By fact Brainstorm removes much of the skill in deck building (which basically nobody does anyway, so maybe it's moot), since if you have Island and fetchlands and no (Chalice on 1 or Chains) there are no common reasons not to run it. Only the most threat dense no fetch blue decks that tap out during their turn would eschew it (see: Merfolk).
By fact Brainstorm removes much of the risk or decision making during mulliganing as it and a fetchland can effectively unmulligan your hand. This alone would merit ban consideration compared to some of the refuse that sits on the banned list currently.
It's ubiquity and efficiency aren't debatable. It's power level isn't much more debatable. So to sit here and actually debate a 1UU 3/1 that doesn't win the game upon entering the battlefield being ban worthy while Brainstorm runs rampant is laughable.
OK I'm ready for somebody bring up lands as ban candidates in defense of brainstorm ... :laugh:
Ban the fecthlands. They are the true offenders. Not only do you get a free shuffle, you also get insane mana fixing