Printable View
Well then, name nonblue cards thatQuote:
Originally Posted by btm10
a) don't break the format (by logistics or brokeness) and
b) still impact it in a meaningful way that it actually reduces the number of blue shell-based decks without easily going blue shells.
I dare you.
The only card I can think of that could qualify would be Survival, but even then, there's no way to tell that a UGx Survival variant isn't going to be the dominant one.
I'd love to see Earthcraft unbanned. Enchantress isn't tier 3 at all - it's tier 2 because it can't beat combo. Its UR Delver matchup is about even, it's slightly favored against Miracles, and it's UWr Blade matchup is insanely good. Enchantress with Earthcraft would be a tier 1 deck that performed about as well Elves - it can't beat combo, but has great game against control, aggro, and midrange.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Well, Earthcraft is the obvious other one. Again, I'm not asking for blue to not be the best color. I really don't care what the best color is. If UGx Survival is the best Survival deck and it's viable, then unbanning Survival got us a new deck and we should be happy about it. The things that make blue the best color are what make the format enjoyable because you don't need to hope to draw well, you just engineer your draws with cantrips. Or you can go the Enchantress/Elves route and draw a ton of extra cards. Either way, you don't need to worry about randomly bricking nearly as often because a significant fraction of your deck is redraws. It's a feature, not a bug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
So... ban brainstorm, and the elves deck? :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by death
I believe he is merely pointing out, that some people tell him that you cannot be consistent in Legacy without playing Brainstorm, and he is showing that you can wtih Elves.
If you come in here to brag accomplishments using your "unfair" pet deck I will burn you. It doesn't help with the discussion about format 'balance'.
If on the other hand you share similar results using D&T, Maverick, Lands, MUD or Rock, I will give you a standing ovation and treat you to Starbucks.
You're right, there is 1 deck that top 8'd a 30+ event in all of 2014. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by btm10
Can we ban the word "Balance" from this thread? And while we're at it, also stop ignoring all numbers related to D&T, Elves, etc. for the discussion of average performance with the grotesque argument that "not everyone likes to play Elves or D&T or [enter solid deck choice]"?
Thanks!
Times again I wonder at which decks people want to point at as a reference for a healthy format if Blue, combo, Elves, D&T, Chalice decks, etc. all are considered part of the problem
Read my post carefully. I welcome D&T and others, in fact, this is what the thread is all about: defending fair decks and balance strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Not a single soul mentioned that Elves, D&T, chalices are actually part of the problem.
But, what's the point of bringing into the discussion that your [insert unfair deck] is breaking statistics? Is that the same as saying playing Elves is the solution? Or I'm the greatest Elves player in world?
Please understand the meaning of each post before commenting. Happy New Year!
This isn't funny. I actually play decks that don't give shit about Elves so much that my Perishes are starting to grow molds in my binder.Quote:
Originally Posted by nevilshute
You wanna hear something funny? People maindecking Pyroblasts and Chains of Mephistopheles (a 250 dollar card) in a Grand Prix, that's what's funny.
Oh and uh :smile:.
I think this would be well suited for you as well, I guess. People were even kind enough to several times explain to you that there seems to be this "mantra" that you can't do consistently well in Legacy without Brainstorm. Yet all you do is to just go down the route of saying "yeah well that deck doesn't count" with some un-called for ad hominem on top, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Happy new year to you tooQuote:
Originally Posted by death
I feel that the Label "unfair" is slapped these days not only at combo decks (S&T For the upcoming example) but also on decks running blue or stuff like Elves or D&T since all those decks either "cheat" on mana one or the other way (Sneak Attack, S&T, Vial, Cradle, NO, Treasure Cruise, Daze, FoW, Terminus, Food Chain) or evade the battlefield for classic interaction (storm, Dredge, Oops!, etc.). So is Jund with Bloodbraid Elf also an unfair deck if Elves is constantly mocked in this thread for it's redundancy and mana-cheating?
I'm not convinced decks which opt to pay full for all their spells should receive special care or that WotC should take those decks as the Standard for the format, because every successful deck in MTG is a) trying to minimize the opponents ability to interact (Thalia, Chalice, discard, Storm, Shroud, evasion, Wasteland, etc.) and b) is trying to get the best effects for the lowest possible manacost (see Miracles mechanic, Delve, FoW, S&T, etc.), which are considered "unfair" traits by now even if the principle is as old and basic as Juzaam Jinn's (back then relevant) protection from Terror.
Uh, as far as I've read it's pretty often "Brainstorm or Elves", people just end up dropping the "or Elves" because it's a really specific build in one color, pretty much an exception to the rule and not an indication of green's overall capabilities for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
For me, Elves represent the essence of greens capabilities of mana-cheating/-generating and creature-Tutoring on top of the exclusive benefits of running plenty of creatures (Cradle, Glimpse).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
If we go the Route of "specific build in one color" we have to ignore also MUD, Burn, Meerfolk, D&T, etc alongside Elves for every discussion of perfomance, despite all of them having made top 8 placings this year. Wouldn't this be stupid? Not to talk about people doing this and still trying to argue with numbers lol
I'm sick of all the ignoring of statistically relevant placings of non-blue decks with shallow reasonings like "but this deck is also unfair", "not everyone who want to play mono red/green/white should be locked into burn/Elves/D&T" or "he/she top 8'ing with that non-blue deck was only lucky". I would be pretty fed up if my name was Anton Karlinski ;)
That mantra was not imposed by or even affect me. Frankly, no shits given. My card pool is deep I'm a deckbuilder first, player second. But if we talk statistics, I'd point out that Brainstorm is the most played (70%) and Ponder third (60%). Again, just stating facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian23
It's irritating to demonstrate to those who post bullshit, either they don't have a clue or downplay the power level of both cards trying their best to avoid them getting banned. Both cards add consistency: fact. Having played 4-Brainstorm decks and 16-cantrip decks, fuck mantras aside I can tell the difference.
There is no need to rub it in the "You don't need Brainstorm to do consistently well in legacy." But for fuck's sake every legacy player knows Elves is not blue and doesn't play Brainstorm. Even then it is very consistent, it does have green cantrips and cheat spells, capable of goldfishing turn 3, not a fair example is it?
Fun fact: every once in a while, Elves can goldfish on turn 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Can I ask to what your agenda is with your posts in this thread? It kind of reads as though you want to get rid of all cards that improve consistency (cantrips - blue or otherwise) or "cheat" (anything that reduces mana cost or mana ramps significantly). This is a genuine question as I started reading only a few pages ago and it's not clear to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
After reading some of the newer posts I see some major problems concerning this whole "ban Brainstorm" discussion. (Brainstorm 4 ever)
There are people who simply don't understand the format and are cognitively blocked by their Casual-Magic-minds that there are colors in competitive play.
I am sure that every competitive player, and I would include myself here, doesn't give a fuck about the color of their cards. I am certain that Julian doesn't play
Elves because he likes to be a "green mage" nor he feels a bond between him and this color. Certainly.
But that is just one side of the problem which was already discussed in this shitty "on blue" thread.
Furthermore, and I repeat myself here, there are people who wants Legacy to be a format of creature combat where their pet decks can compete again but that is not
the reality nor do they represent a majority of the format. I want to make sick plays, use my Brainstorm in all situations, win from the top of my library and so on.
Brainstorm (and Ponder) are not OP, they are totally fine. Subjectivity is intended and always present just to let you know.
It seems to me that there are people crying about the format and others, more experienced players try to explain notions and possibilities and this whole theater reminds me
of a damn kindergarten where one party is not capable to understand, acknowledge or reflect. I would suggest that one should let them have their thread as a vehicle for their rage because otherwise this thread is just a "post-count +1" massacre.
I love the smell of a No True Scotsman in the morning. No, seriously, that argument is horrible and ass-backwards. If I decide to compete I just ask what cards I own, can borrow and what deck will I get the best EV with from some combination of raw power, meta placeemnt and familiarity so I can actually see the good lines. There's little else, nothing else to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
Thing is, I don't get paid to play this game. It's not my job. I do it for fun, and that fun doesn't come 100% from competition though playing cutthroat is a large part of it - nobody's fun does, I bloody well guarantee it.
Yup, you sure know. Argue for yourself and those who think like you, not for some majority whose preferences you can't know of.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
On the pet deck argument, let's turn Legacy into Thragtusk.format and see how many of you Brainstorm-championing pure competitive souls will last. Not long, methinks. Because there's a reason you don't play Standard or Modern.
Joke of the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
Damn, this is such a great argument that I have to snatch it for my own use. So brutally effective. "The other side in the argument is an idiot kid so I can disregard him" is the gist of it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by CabalTherapy
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevilshute
Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Why was Elves a bad example? Because it takes someone for a fool that it's just like any deck on the same level as non-blue decks in the format.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Any win% with Elves doesn't give privilege to say "I can prove that you don't need Brainstorm to do consistently well in legacy" either. It's hypocritical when you're playing and drawing spells much like a blue deck, in fact better.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Quote:
Originally Posted by death
The highlighted part is quite wrong. You canīt say anything about opinions you donīt know so be carefull before using all players. As reference I draw my fun out of competition not out of my deck or the creatures I play etc. My deck is only a tool which I use to compare my skill against that of my oponent.Quote:
Zombie
I do it for fun, and that fun doesn't come 100% from competition though playing cutthroat is a large part of it - nobody's fun does, I bloody well guarantee it.
This means I want to optimize my deck and play the best thing possible in the given archtype I prefer. This also means I allways will take any legal action to win. So yes it is fun for me to compete in an actual tournement like field.
So when I talk about having fun it is the desire for competition and a comparrison of skills with the best decks I can build and play. For me this means if I see a deck which is to strong for mine I either switch the deck or find a way to win against it though card switching.
But if you look at it is certainly non blue. And if your argument is non blue decks are not as consitent as the blue ones elves is a valid deck to prove you wrong. Because the onlyQuote:
Death
Why was Elves a bad example? Because it takes someone for a fool that it's just like any deck on the same level as non-blue decks in the format.
thing it has to be to do this is not being blue.
First, I did not mean "people do not actually enjoy competition", because that would be a silly and wrong claim. Many people here get a lot of fun from playing competitively. I meant what I said very literally, and relatively narrowly. Everyone has outside factors they derive enjoyment from - it's why we play MTG, a specific format of it, and favour archetypes. I don't mean starry-eyed newbie attachments to things, or any kind of deep idealism. Simply enjoyment of things apart from raw strength, which we all have. And especially enjoyment of these other things in addition to the raw strength of the decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
Everyone wants strong decks. But people enjoy different things. Atm playing Brainstorm or Elves is the best thing to be doing. I can be happy in a selfish way with this because those other things of Elves are what I enjoy and I can enjoy those other extra things of some blue decks. But not everyone does. You probably do not want to turn midrange kavus sideways, nor do Carsten and Lemnear and others. But some people really like that other stuff and don't like the feeling that comes from playing Brainstorm. But right now it's Brainstorm, Elves, go home if you're 100% serious and especially when playing a long event, so they end up having less fun by trying their best to compete or end up having less fun because they are less competitive with a nonblue non-Elves deck.
"Nonblue decks aren't as consistent" does not mean these people claim "No nonblue deck can be as consistent a blue deck" but that, as a group overall, the blue decks have a distinct edge. Elves and to a point D&T are pleasant outliers. In other words: "There are many blue cantrip decks that achieve the best consistency. There are one or two nonblue decks that achieve the best consistency. This makes us sad." Basically think more heuristic/probability, less hard logic to get the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teveshszat
I don't think it's hypocritical because of that. It's just a good thing that happens to exist. It's hypocritical because it's a single rather narrow archetype and other decks have a hard time incorporating Elves' methods because those consistency methods are very Elves-specific. Blue cantrip shells is a whole category of decks.Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Lands of late has been doing well for itself too. (R/G thread is "Developing" hehe) It's claim is to draw 3 lands a turn every turn. That makes it fairly consistent.