Printable View
I wouldn't be surprised if the actual metagame penetration of nonblue decks was less than 25%. If anything, a deck like Maverick probably significantly overperformed its representation by placing in top 16 at all, let alone winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Perhaps but I have my doubts. We've had in the last few months SCG Top8's where the BS penetration was 50% or less but that has tended to reverse quickly. In fact a Maverick list showed up once post-Khans and someone on this board claimed that Treasure Cruise now opened more viable non-blue decks than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Also because of the Reserve List there is a natural mechanism for non-blue decks to pop up, yet even with this it has trended more blue over the last few years.
Brainstorm is becoming better because of the design direction that Wizards is going in. It's otherwise just a really well-designed, powerful card that doesn't win you the game.
Brainstorm picking up percentages wasn't some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, it was Wizards printing dumb shit in blue or blue-related stuff while not printing proper hate/just flat out banning it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Delver caused a goddamn 10% jump in blue decks the meta has never recovered from, but they didn't just stop there, considering they printed Griselbrand (aka S&T/Reanimator fodder), the Miracle mechanic, TNN and now the Delve draw spells.
It all feeds Brainstorm and Brainstorm feeds them.
Lamentably, Brainstorm's gastronomic rapacity knows no satiety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
Oh, then you should be thrilled to have it banned!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
But they're different decks. Stop grouping all decks that run brainstorm as brainstorm decks. Might as well call it "island decks". Omg island is OP ban it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
So, despite being grossly underrepresented in the field, we have 3 nonblue decks in the top 4. Isn't everyone who is complaining about Brainstorm, doing so because it "invalidates other strategies"?
So if no strategies are invalidated, and brainstorm is just popular, there technically isn't a problem? You can still win with your Junk deck, bro. Turns out an 8/8 KotR is nothing to scoff at when all you're facing is a bunch of lightning bolts.
Everytime I look at Spirit of the Labyrinth, I'm sad it isn't 2/1 flash. Wizards had a real opportunity there. I'm not saying it's bad the way it is, the card does see some play in D&T and Maverick. But Jesus, if it was 2/1 flash.
I was just thinking the same thing last night!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicar in a tutu
I'm also annoyed by this, but its intended ignorance to feed the own arguments. Maybe I'll start grouping "Wasteland-decks" like Goblins, MUD, D&T and RUG Delver together to make some "founded" arguments that these decks are only playable on the back of the mana-denialQuote:
Originally Posted by AznSeal
Yeah cards would be better if they had additional abilities without an increase of cost. Dark Confidant/SFM/Delver would be better if they had Flash/Shroud/hexproof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicar in a tutu
The posit presented lowers the power to gain flash. While not an "increase" in cost, it's a re-allocation of benefit, thus not all glory and no sacrifice. But hey, enjoy your stuff and poop on other's, it's the way of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Oh, then we can make the Insectile Aberation a 3/1 with shroud instead of a 3/2? Make Dark Confidant a 1/1 with Shroud? A loss of a single point among P/T does not outweight an additional abilityQuote:
Originally Posted by ahg113
If you wanted to discuss Wasteland, why would you not create the categories of Wasteland decks and non-Wasteland decks? I really can't understand your argument at all. If I played Maze's_End_Shit.dec and said "I have a bad matchup versus Wasteland decks, I wonder if I can see how bad I'll get blown out," I've just created a false dichotomy that explains nothing? I honestly don't get that at all. If Wasteland is what I am concerned with, why would my first level of analysis not be to break down my data to things-that-run-Wasteland and things-that-don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I think you are attempting to frame the straw man you are making in your second point. Who said any deck would be unplayable without Brainstorm?
that's fighting bad design with bad design. The point of permanents is that they are "slow" continuous effects whos worth comes form them staying around. Giving everything useful flash just makes smears different styles of play together into one boring, homogeneous mass. It's the same idea as Delver/TNN - these were printed because wizards wants every single deck to be a deck build around good beaters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicar in a tutu
I could take the same flawed logic route which some users try for Brainstorm:Quote:
Originally Posted by H
"Wasteland is in 38% of all decks. It stifles diversity of decks running tool-lands and engines which root on Dark Depths, Punishing Fire, Karakas, Manlands and non-basics in general. Without all these Wasteland-decks in the format, decks which utilize non-basics can shine again without being oppressed by this undercosted, in fact ZERO-MANA landdestruction. WotC has decided that Landdestruction is bearable at 4 mana as recent printings show and Wasteland is ergo simply undercosted and broken. It should be banned to increase diversity."
I'm 100% sure you'd be defending 4-of Ancestral Recall.
The Brainstorm decks maybe aren't the same, but the gaming experience feels the same. Same, same, same old boring repetetive sameness of fetch, dual Ponder, go. Ad nauseam.
If that is how you feel, then make the argument. You are not proving anything about Brainstorm or about the choice to ban it or not with that statement. If you want to prove something, show data and discuss what it means. You are actually doing that, so your point is valid to consider (makes no difference if it is correct or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
However, you framed your original point with the fact that you were tired of people breaking down decks in to "Brainstorm decks" and "non-Brainstorm decks." You said you were tired of that false dichotomy. You rephrased your answer without adressing my questions about that.
Is the dichotomy of Wasteland and non-Wasteland decks valid?
Who said any deck would be unplayable without Brainstorm?
I'm not making a statement because I don't see a certain Penetration of a card in a metagame a problem itself, which is something which is repeatingly claimed in terms of brainstorm or, new contender in this thread, FoW. I see them all as tools to keep degenerated linear decks in Check or to reduce variance which we all Desire for tournament decks, but don't present a threat themselves which, in combination with a certain percentage within the metagame, has proven to be a banning criteria for WotC.Quote:
Originally Posted by H
So no, as for Brainstorm, the dichotomy to seperate the field into Wasteland and non-Wasteland is not valid as I see the value of the card supporting decks like D&T and Landstill at the same time which have a completely different use of Wasteland and don't share a strategic approach. I see the same diversity in Brainstorm if it's either used to react on opposing cards on instant speed in Control subtypes to find immediate solutions or if used to fix combo-components in blue based combo decks. I created an example with Wasteland to show that the Brainstorm vs non-Brainstorm debate is very narrow-minded and that pure numbers are not necessarily evidence of a problem.
I never said "deck x is unplayable without Brainstorm". I hinted the card being a backbone for some decks like Wasteland is for D&T.
Edit:
Ok, we know for quite some time now that you can differ drawing three fresh cards in addition to your jank from drawing three, put your (hopefully) two jank card back and hope you don't ever Redraw them or want to differ +2 cards from +/- 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer
Maybe we should ban the best one drops of each deck, so Goblins don't ever have that repetitive experience to drop Lackey/Vial as their opener in every game or BG decks being forced to start their games with either DRS or Thoughtseize. It's really boring to watch for me too.
It's hilarious to complain that decks, which are trimmed for redundancy, try to do the same every game. Barely as funny as someone who sold his cards in 2013 commenting on 2014's play experience.
Ok, so BS isn't op? I'm interested in your opinion, as many uninformed players think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Lackey is at >70% penetration? Quite a shlong for a mere goblin...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
U-um. It's about whole BS power, not only about consistency it gives. And I know you know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
dafuq?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear