Printable View
They're getting a little better at printing spells. Fatal Push is well received. Kolaghan's Command doeth all things well.
It's just the logical extension that if it's worth playing once, then it's worth playing twice, so let's throw some Snapcasters in there. But then we're stretching our colors a bit aren't we? Nah just toss in some DRS and we'll be fine. Goodstuff! This is just the natural evolution of having the best at everything.
I think, that hinting at the fact, that a 1-mana "Planeswalker" is fine to be printed but 2-mana counterspells are "too good" (topic: Mana Leak) would have been sufficient as example to show that there is a massive misbalance between "threats" & "answers" in modern set design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
If removal & counters are more expensive than the cards removed, they are getting pointless and people rather "trump" enemy threats with even bigger ones. It's the natural development we have witnessed during the times of Cancel & Murder.
The development of creatures compared to other card types is easiest to see in Vintage, a format which had only a few viable creatures like 11 years ago and now looks like a whole different format.
But don't let me derail the discussion here :)
I agree with what you are saying, except DRS is a poor example. They were willing to print it because it's a mediocre card in Standard. Even still, it was banned in Modern, and probably considered a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Guess you are right. Maybe should have picked tarmogoyf vs CancelQuote:
Originally Posted by Crimhead
In fairness, the recent Fatal Push is one of the best removal spells of all time.
100% rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
You're exactly right, and I agree that just means the format would adapt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
I think the difference is one of perception. No fetches would still mean people having access to :Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
- ABUR Duals
- Shocklands
- Painlands
- Filter lands
- the ones that enter tapped if you do/don't control the corresponding land type (note they don't require a basic land, so duals and shocks tick the box)
- City of Brass
- 3-color taplands
- TE & EW
- ... and I'm probably forgetting some
In such a format, reliably getting 4+ colors is still quite achievable - you just can't get it without a noticeable drawback, a balancing mechanic that is at the very basic foundation of the game. Note you have an abundant number of tools/options on how you elect to pay this bill (being more exposed to non-basic hate, and/or a tempo loss, and/or additional life payment, and/or...).
So, I don't think it would be fair to say that removing the fetches from the format would make the fixing "suck". Far, far from it. I think, at the absolute worst, it would make the available fixing fair (and I do mean at the absolute worst).
The fact that Wizards has dedicated the introduction of fetchlands an own spot in their recent timeline of magic due to the upcoming M25 set imo suggests that they are well aware that these lands have had a huge impact on the way the game works, especially with respect to the validity of color borders and the color pie and that they have probably considered removing them at some point.
You make a good point about how color was intended as a means of balancing mechanics by splitting them up. I also agree that there's no shortage of options to keep multicolored decks viable, but I feel like people are more likely to gravitate toward running more dual lands than they are to play stuff that comes into play tapped. My main worry is that this would price people (like me) out of the format and would give certain tempo builds even greater effectiveness in the absence of easy fixing for other archetypes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerLewis
Also, though the format would evolve, I think this would be a pretty fundamental change that would have enormous repercussions all around, not just for 4–5c Chock Full'o'Duals builds. I'm fine with changes, but I like my decks, and I think some of them would become unrecognizable or positively unplayable if such a change were to happen. Of course, on the flipside, I could still play Burn, Dredge, Charbelcher, and Poops without any detrimental effect; would a rise in those decks be good for the format, though?
I think you're probably right, but the fact that they keep printing them indicates that they don't want them gone. Of course, Invocation Counterbalance was pretty indicative of poor planning (as was Invocation Blood Sun—er, Moon), but knocking fetches right after printing them would be a slap in the face of a whole lot of players across formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdvermampfa
This doesn't have any bearing on the argument, but how weird would it be for Modern to have better fixing than Legacy?
Maro has said that if "Frontier" ever became a sanctioned format it would not have Fetches in it. More or less says it all imo.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post...-the-idea-of-a
We get it, but none of us want to play without our fetches man. You will not win anyone over, no matter how much you make sense, I don't agree with that trash! Good points, but no way, Jose. How bout banning duals? Would force you to fetch shocklands. That could maybe push aggressive strategies over the edge, the extra 2-6 life lost a game by multicolored decks, to the point that we see an actual shake up: aggros return.Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerLewis
This was mentioned from the start, but I'm not sure anyone would get really priced out of the format. 4c/5c just can't be built by only piling up on Duals - you're forced to run rainbow lands like City of Brass which are basically free (and accept folding up no questions asked to any Moon effect). Basically, they'd probably be playing a few more duals than today (something like 12), but a typical Czech Pile list will run ~9 today, so the difference is not that high. Additionally, it would so fold to Wasteland and Blood Moon that it either would be a moot point or they'd find another more resilient way to adapt, probably accepting some tempo loss (eg playing TE/EW or the slow fetches, where in both cases "more duals" wouldn't be a real solution).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce
2c decks are almost unaffected from the change (and 1c obviously don't care), so I feel only 3c decks would be "at risk" of seeing their optimal manabase turning into running 2-3 more duals than today while still be able to survive as-is. On the other hand, they'd be playing 6-8 fetches less, so the actual price difference is probably more in the ~1.5 dual range. It's not nothing, but it's not a different world. That's also supposing people don't turn to other solutions for their manabases (eg maybe green decks run a 5-6 mix of BoP/NH instead of 4 DRS - or don't at all, don't know).
That's not what he said. He says that "I wouldn’t have included Khans block because I don’t think you want fetches in the format" i.e. that it is his own personal opinion and not necessarily that of WOTC. I don't think he's even particularly involved with the development side of things, which I believe would be the ones tasked with making such a format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
Although, the idea of starting later than Khans of Tarkir is a bit amusing because that would mean (right now) you'd have it be composed of nothing other than really unpopular Standard formats.
I would like to see brainstorm banned since the 18000 card legacy format is now 3 overarching archetypes:
1) Brainstorm plus ponder and/or fow decks. This is literally the majority of the format per mtgtop8.
2) Prison decks to hate out the above (chalice and thalia decks plus lands)
3) Glass cannon combo (br reanimator/elves/dredge etc.)
Now I get the argument that there are many different decks within the three including the brainstom decks...but I think the format could be much more diverse without it. After the brainstorm shell you are really just picking your win cons and favorite protection spells.
Would you please elaborate? What would we be seeing in their stead? It seems a bit too easy to say “all these decks that use the best cards are keeping all the other decks out” without elaborating on what we’re missing out on and quantifying just how many more viable decks there’d actually be.Quote:
Originally Posted by kinda
And why is even more diversity desirable? Isn’t the current environment overall rather healthy, with decent sideboard plans for most decks against most other decks?
Would also like to better understand what the diversity would be.
The blue almost needs to exist to keep the unfair decks in check.
No one is arguing for a ban of FoW, Daze, Pierce or whatever. The point is that banning brainstorm could be a first step to create parity between the colors in terms of card selection and randomness management. As long as BS is legal decks that can't play it will always fight an uphill battle and if you actually want to win at games it will always be silly to play without it. If BS was banned, blue would still have an advantage in this regard because there are so many other cantrips that could replace it so you blue fanboys could still be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
My guess is banning it would pretty much create a whole new format. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic? I don't know what would be good...but I'm very curious. Side note, I love legacy just can't shake the feeling that we are missing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by now
no reason to get personal here. i haven't competitively used brainstorm since around 2010-2012, and that was with doomsday. i've pushed quite a few decks that have no brainstorm/ponder.
anyway -
http://mtgtop8.com/format?f=LE&meta=39
if you take a look at the breakdown on the left, it's pretty diverse already.
what cards do you want from the other colors that are not being played but would get played if brainstorm were banned? what other decks are you looking to play?
the best cards of each color are roughly already being played. sometimes if you want to have consistency outside of blue, you need to find synergies. is that fair? maybe not, but the brainstorm decks also can then get preyed upon by chalice and taxing decks.
the argument really isn't brainstorm, there are enough cantrips in blue so that every deck that wants to xerox to death will still be able to. at this point the game is getting so complex that the only way to stop this kind of strategy is hate against it.
thalia, chalice, thorn, eidolon are all great examples of ways to beat this kind of strategy. this is also why aether vial, blood moon, wasteland, and to a lesser extent port have a strong effect on decks that try to maximize efficiency.
you have to choose what kind of strategy you want to play. if you want to get around the blue, then you'll have to approach the game differently. it can be done, and sometimes sacrificing a little consistency can be well worth it.
just because you may be facing a brainstorm deck doesn't mean that you're an underdog. there's such a range of those decks that you can be a heavy favorite in some and a huge dog in others.
i'm not sure what you're trying to get out of it.
(just a quick edit, i've been playing competitively since tempest came out and i've seen the huge range in decks from old t2, 1.5, 1x and the current formats as well. i'm not really sure what people are expecting will develop if things are banned to reduce consistency).
This entire dumpster fire of a thread is about BS and why it should be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercakes
Not a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by non-inflammable
Brainstorm could be banned tomorrow, and in no time at all people would be bitching about DRS, CotV, S&T, Ponder, or whatever else rubs them the wrong way.
What this thread is 90% "about" is ranting and whining that Legacy isn't everything some of us want it to be.
He means that Phyrexian Chalice of the Trinisphere of Resistance would be marginally close to viable, and yet it would still lose to Poops, All Spells. And that would be great until he decided it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by now
Can't we just be happy that Value.dec is keeping hideous(ly awesome) stuff in check, yet it still has predators? I'm not happy about certain cards' format penetration, but cascading bans are the thing that makes Modern terrible, and I don't want to see that happen here.
Still seems that people want Their Kind of Magic not only to be the best kind to play in Legacy, but the only one.
We really need a reset of the poll up top.
No, I think we need a reminder that once-upon-a-time, 23.96% of voters felt that Tarmogoyf was the most bannable card in Legacy. And that, according to the voters, Tarmogyf was the second most bannable card in Legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
It's an important historical document, especially in the ban-Deathrite climate we are in now.
I find it interesting that Standstill was also under consideration :laugh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by H
It's understandable since Tarmogoyf used to do exactly what cards like Deathrite do know, i.e. they completely invalidate certain cards and strategies that were popular and playable before which results in an even narrower space for innovative approaches. Of course Deathrite is on a whole other level of Tarmogoyf but the analogy imo holds some truth in it.
I know, shit, Goblin Lackey was still getting votes too. Goblin. Lackey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Miagi
B&R discussion is most probably better renamed: "What-Did-I-Lose-To-Last-Week-And-Why-Is-It-Bad-For-The-Format Discussion."
OK and so do numerous other cards and mechanics, should we ban all of those? Storm for example. If the qualification of "just really good" is the criterion for banning, what would we have left in Legacy when we are done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdvermampfa
The point of my likening the two situations, is that as Tarmogoyf was once considered too ubiquitous, so too will the day will come where we laugh at the idea of banning something like Deathrite.
It was also considered to be the best blue creature. Hah! :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by H
https://i.imgur.com/TKMizJ2.jpg?1Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
And I do too.
I mean, without proper historical context, 23.96% of the voter base choosing Tarmogoyf as the most bannable card in legacy doesn't actually mean anything. That's like saying the Land Tax ban in 1996 was unwarranted just because Land tax is completely fine in today's meta. It's possible that the card was just oppressive at the time of the poll and has simply fallen by the wayside with the MtG power creep that has taken place since the poll was held. Similarly, I'm sure the people who wanted top banned in 2016 wanted it banned for different reasons than those who wanted it banned in 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Why does an old poll preclude the possibility of a new poll? It's been almost 9 years since those numbers were recorded and the game has changed in countless ways since then. If the main interest is in preserving a piece of history as some sort of lesson, then why not just lock/sticky this thread and start a new poll with more up to date choices?
I get your point, but am pretty sure you're wrong here. People wanted Top banned then because of it's interaction with Counterbalance and the amount of time it increased games. Wasn't that the reasoning for its recent ban?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
The real reason the poll should not be reset is because internet polls are pointless and uninformative.
This whole thread doesn't mean anything though. We aren't the ones who determined banned list policy. My point in illustrating the (seeming) parallel is that historically there is almost always a card that is highly ubiquitous card (or cards) that seem to be better than others, leading to a higher presence in the metagame. This really does not mean they are over-powered, it just means that the meta, as currently constructed, has identified a prevalent set of cards that offer a (seeming) maximal power-level. The (plausible) historical lesson of not banning Tarmogoyf is that, one, the meta will change, two, seemingly over-powered or oppressive things will be superseded, and three, that Wizard's criterion for banning things is not ubiquity (this lesson also applies to Brainstorm, et al).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
I'd be down for archiving this and making a new one, not obliterating the historical record. But I agree with Ace, in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
That's fair. I started playing Legacy in 2014 so I can't say too much about the history of the format.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
This I disagree with. I know you weren't the one who made this point, but it seems sort of baseless to assume that internet polls have no value whatsoever when some people want to leave them up as a lesson and others want a more current reflection of the opinions of The Source's members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew
That said, I'll concede that polls are pretty a unreliable form of collecting data, and that its ultimately up to us as viewers to take the information presented with a grain of salt.
Cool, I can get behind that. I'm wary of the power creep printings associated with meta corrections (Tarmogoyf was neutered by a 1 mana 7cmc 5/5 and a subsequent printing of the most efficient 1 cmc black removal spell in history), but you're right to say that these problems do sometimes correct themselves without outside B&R interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
Indeed. The only one who did was the genius placing the "BAN SDT" sign on WOTCs parking lotQuote:
Originally Posted by H
Clearly need a BAN DRS sign now. Odds are that's the only way they'll even acknowledge Legacy.
And that is (to me) literally the best possible way for it to all shake out. My personal opinion is that Brainstorm, Force of Will, Ponder, Deathrite Shaman, fetches, Dual lands, Wasteland etc., are actually the "correct" power level for Legacy, the "issue" is that there are simply not that many cards that are "as good." This really doesn't mean we should ban all of them. It means we should try (i.e. hope) to get new cards printed that can offer up competition to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesture
I mean, the idea that we should just bad good cards to allow inferior cards to see play gets absurd after a while. Should we ban Underground Sea because it means that Creeping Tar Pit and Jwar Isle Refuge are not good enough? Aren't we playing Legacy to get access to these high powered cards?
So then what is the correct line to draw when banning cards to allow other cards "into the format?" Should we keep going until Savannah Lion is good again? It's like some kind of reverse Relegation, where if you get too good, you need to be removed. Note that Wizards most certainly does not share the collective impression that good equals oppressive, see the years of discussion (and inaction) on SDT/Miracles pre-ban.
You know what needs to be done then... :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I think the recent unbanning of Jace/Bloodbraid in Modern might be an indication that WotC is willing to take on a little more risk as far as power level. If that is the case the trend could become unbannings rather than more bannings. I could also see them 'fixing' some cards on the ban list to get the effect, albeit less broken, back into the game.
Example:
Mental Stub your Toe, U, counter target spell with converted mana cost 1
Survival of the Dad-Bod, 1G, G discard a creature card: search your library for a creature card, reveal it and put it into your hand. You may do this only as a sorcery and only once a turn. Shuffle your library.
With the whole sentiment surrounding Masters 25, there are a lot of people that are talking about the 'good old days' of magic, whether they were in fact good or not. The community wants pushed cards, and allowing other pushed cards to fight them.
One decision does not a trend make, but it was encouraging to see them try out some unbannings with Jace/BBE.
BTW, does anyone know why SotF is a $60 card currently? I bought one for $10 about 2 years ago.
Prolly EDH... filthy casuals
Sounds more like you got a great deal. I had my eye on them for a number of years, to round out my collection, starting in about 2013 or so. I never saw them that low. I felt like they were overpriced at $30 but of course I eventually caved and bought them near $40.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Safety
This graph shows the price history and suppoorts the idea that $10 was just a superior deal, not the usual price two years ago. I think the main reasons for the spikes though are unban specualtion, reserved list speculation, filthy casuals, mostly in that order...
If you did a top 20 of non power/ante cards using both legal and banned cards I'm curious where cards like Drs would rank. Drs is clearly worse than oath...but also clearly more format defining than mind twist would be.
I probably got my dates mixed up. It was fairly soon after it was banned, which I checked and it was 2010. I bought it maybe 6 months later. I was building a janky Survival-based EDH deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by H