All B/R update speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format"

---

Format diversity, that's implicit. Whatever becomes a constant everywhere, like the P9 in Old School, is the very definition of what is "bad" for format diversity. Guess Lemnear is right, this is not an opinion. But that's not why I'm joining the conversation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Did you played in 1994? do you play old school? wow, let's play without fetchlands, what a wonderful experience for the manabases

---

That's interesting for me. I used to play in 1994 and now I'm a proud Old School player. I love it also for the experience of the crazy manabase that you can enjoy in this card-diversity killer format. The best deck in the format, called "the Deck", can be 5 colors in a meta where Blood Moon is definitely a thing. Power of the right mix of duals, City of Brass, P9 and... crazy broken Fellwar Stone? And I enjoy 3-5 colors decks all the time, with very different strategies.

With fetchlands gone, multicolor decks are not dying at all; they're just varying the manabase on a much wider and customized card pool.

(side note, I'm actually impartial about the topic, last time I played legacy was years ago. Cheers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Actually, as kombatkiwi said, that's precisely what you and all the other "against fetchlands" bandwagon are doing. You are saying that you like decks that are linear, and/or that you like decks that have redundancies more than decks that have filtering options (because a consequence would be build decks with more copies of the relevant cards, more "4x" lists).


Again, as as kombatkiwi said, it's not like it is an "objective truth". The point you make is sound WHEN and IF you accept the goals you are trying to achieve
in short, it's exactly a matter of personal preferences

---

This is a complete misunderstanding of the argument. I will illustrate:

1) Among people who drink soda, it has found that the high sugar content has detrimental health effects. These can be managed many ways, but overall if soda didn't have as much sugar it would be more reasonable to drink regularly. Sugar is in almost all soda brands, it is nearly ubiquitous.
2) Therefore, we should explore lower-sugar or sugar-less soda recipes to offset the general risk of too much sugar.

Now you're response is:

3) Why da fuck do y'all love Diet Coke so much? Just pushing your preferences man!

If you think that example looks foolish, it is. But that's how you're spinning it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brael

Your examples are a tribal card for a mostly green tribe and a bunch of green cards that generate mana. Do you really not see the difference between that and Underground Sea being the best card to open on for mana acceleration?

---

Now you are talking about efficiency rather than the colour pie.
The colour pie is actually NOT about which colour can/cannot do which, but rather which colour should do which things best, i.e., most efficiently. One example, Desert Twister destroys nonflying creatures for green, but it is totally fine at 6cc.
True Name Nemesis infringes and supersedes white's protection pie; Delver of Secrets despises all other colours by being the most efficient 1cc aggro creature, the least blue is supposed to do.

Edit: If DRS were banned due to colour pie infringement, WotC would have happily stated it. This is one of their favorite excuses after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format".
WOTC repeteadly said that the mere numbers are not a sufficient reason for a ban. That should be enough for all your nothingness.

---

Argument was and is diversity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Nobody said fetchlands aren't played. The point is that giving to this FACT (!!11!1!!!!) the SUBJECTIVE value of "BAD" is, exactly, subjective. We could, can, and DO say that it's "GOOD".

---

BS+Ponder+Fetchlands isnt "good" for the formats diversity. It has a track record of rendering every other cardselection and manafixing next to unplayable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

As I said in my first post here, arguing with a conspiracist like you clearly are is pointless, given that you are even serious when you laughably use the word "engine" for a cycle of 10 cards with an ability. Let's suggest WOTC to add "fetch" as a mechanic in the storm scale and give it the value of 11. LOL

---

Don't act even more dull than your post already implies by intentionally misinterpreting what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Did you played in 1994? do you play old school? wow, let's play without fetchlands, what a wonderful experience for the manabases.

---

I touched cards the first time when Arabian Nights was in stock and booster boxes contained one of every rare card of the set by default. I dont know what the point is. Do you imply that the game was unplayable until Onslaught due to no Fetchlands until then?

I "gladly" note that everybody answered my trolling but nobody answered to my serious questions.
I think this speaks for how serious the "ban fetchland" bandwagon is.

More sugar please!

Keep saying that fetchlands are detrimental to format diversity while all the evidence suggests the contrary and without any proof supporting the claim (proof which of course can't exist, because you can't test a legacy-2018-but-without-fetchland as a comparison, and so you can't have "facts" but only speculations for how the format COULD be, the before-fetchland-printing past not being representative at all).

But of course, If I don't recall wrong, this is the same thread where some people claim that since brainstorm is ubiquitous it's detrimental for format diversity, as if ANT, miracle and delver were the same archetype because they all play brainstorm.

All the decks that play fetchlands are the same thing, we play mirrors all day, how boring!
Nic-fit vs canadian? they both have fetchland, so it's a mirror match!
Miracle vs delver? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!
Aggro Loam vs Infect? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!
Elves vs ANT? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!

I could go on, but it's better to stop and simply use a quote of your own:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

If you think that example looks foolish, it is. But that's how you're spinning it.

---

(PS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte

Format diversity, that's implicit. Whatever becomes a constant everywhere, like the P9 in Old School, is the very definition of what is "bad" for format diversity. Guess Lemnear is right, this is not an opinion

---

Cool... according to you "bad" is not an opinion but a fact. By this same "fact", I guess, people should play vintage without P9 because, come on, everybody plays them, how boring! how bad for the format diversity! ... or wait... maybe... they are not the definition of how "bad" the format is, but instead they are the VERY definition of what the format IS?
but wait... if we follow this line of reasoning... then the very definition of legacy should be Brainstorm, Fow, Wasteland, fetches. But I can't accept this conclusion, go away you heretic! LOL)


Are you playing limited? But it's basic lands everywhere, how boring! If they are everywhere it's detrimental for format diversity! Let's ban basic island!
Go play commander, please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

I "gladly" note that everybody answered my trolling but nobody answered to my serious questions.

---

Maybe because nobody found a "serious question" between all the trolling, acting stupid on purpose and excessive LOLs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Go play commander, please

---

There is enough pissing and moaning in the EDH echo chamber already. I would kindly appreciate if you did not encourage more. One the flipside, for those looking for diversity, EDH will take those tired, poor and wretched refuges of Legacy. Just don't be surprised when somebody gets butthurt when you combo off all over their faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Maybe because nobody found a "serious question" between all the trolling, acting stupid on purpose and excessive LOLs?

---

Your problem is that you simply state that ubiquity is bad, you don't explain why and you assume everybody who disagrees with you is trolling:

Quote:

---

5/20 of the most played cards in the format are Fetchlands. 48% of decks run Polluted Delta. These numbers are not subjective and neither that many of the banned cards in recent years ran on the back of this engine.

---

The NUMBERS are not subjective but what those numbers MEAN is.

1.) Ubiquity of a card in the format is not inherently a bad thing

- In every chess match in modern history each player has had 8 Pawns 2 Rooks 2 Bishops 2 Knights 1 King and 1 Queen. Every player has used the exact same pieces for over 100 years in a 16 v 16 mirror match and the game has remained popular

- In Yugioh, for example, the popular historical formats are 'Goat Format' or 'Tele-DAD format', times when there was a tier 0 midrange/control deck and at the top level of competition you would only face mirror matches where everybody's list was like 80% the same

Many players are not excited by the possibility of winning with many different decks and would rather play a familiar match where players have more of an opportunity to influence the outcome by making in-game decisions. This is one of the major criticisms leveled at modern (there are so many decks that are viable that in the long run you have the freedom to play many different things, but matchups are still lopsided, so every tournament is basically a lottery where you hope you picked the winning deck for that day).

The soda analogy is dumb because a) I don't agree that fetchlands are inherently unhealthy in the same way that sugar is ("more sugar please", some would say), and b) coca cola doesn't have to delete their original recipe to sell a stevia version but legacy can only be one thing at a time.
If CC announced they were arbitrarily replacing their original drink people would get upset about it. (In 1985 this did happen)
Imagine if the Coca Cola company said "We have noticed that all of our products are carbonated: Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Fanta... in the interest of beverage diversity, from today onwards Sprite is flat". You're simply taking some arbitrary element of a thing and erasing it because it's 'too common' without any concern for what it does to the overall quality.

Quote:

---

Note a single sentence about WHY "number of presence in decklists" should equate to "bad for the format".
Nobody said fetchlands aren't played. The point is that giving to this FACT (!!11!1!!!!) the SUBJECTIVE value of "BAD" is, exactly, subjective. We could, can, and DO say that it's "GOOD".

---

You can call this "trolling, acting stupid on purpose, and excessive LOLs", but the fact remains that you still haven't addressed this at all.
All you do is sit there screaming "ITS OVER 48 PERCEEEEEEENT" like Vegeta

Quote:

---

These describe the status quo and only lack an argument for MD graveyard hate to fit for an "UNBAN DRS" campaign. Is the third point a nod to #SkillIntensive?

---

Yes, these do support the status quo and function as arguments for unbanning DRS. I was aware of this when I wrote it. I was largely indifferent to the DRS ban and in favour of the probe ban. I think that revealing the opponent's hand for 0 mana and 0 cards ruins an important element of what makes MTG enjoyable as a card game (hidden information), and Probe leads to high variance games when people get Mind Rotted with Therapy on turn 1. DRS doesn't do anything that I find inherently offensive like this, so while it's a very powerful card I don't really mind whether it's banned or not.

I'm sure many people would complain that this thinking can't be used as input on whether a card should be banned, because you can't make this decision based on personal opinion. I totally disagree, because the 'objective measure' you have come up with is meaningless.
Everybody knows the game 'Rock-Paper-Scissors', the solved meta is 33% rock 33% paper 33% scissors. Uh oh, 33% is kind of high.
Let's take a leaf from the literal shitshow big bang theory and play Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock instead.
This expands the rules to give us the following: Lizard > Paper, Paper > Spock, Spock > Scissors, Scissors > Lizard, Rock > Lizard, Spock > Rock, and Lizard > Spock. (Yes, I had to google it).
Now the solved meta is 20% rock 20% paper 20% scissors 20% spock 20% lizard.
Phew, the dominance of the top strategies have all been reduced by the introduction of these new contenders.
But have we improved the game? No, it's exactly the fucking same.

Quote:

---

Is every deck running the same engine not a problem in regards to diversity?

---

Is lack of diversity a problem? Diversity of what?

It's hard to form a consensus on what constitutes an enjoyable game and it's probably not possible that the entire community will ever unanimously agree on any BR decision, but at least acknowledge this, rather than refusing to accept that there are a significant number of people who see your 48% and don't give a shit. You're still acting like this data is a massive revelation and that once people know the truth everybody will immediately jump on your bandwagon

2). Nobody has put any effort into predicting what will actually happen to the format if fetchlands are banned

Brainstorm isn't very good in pauper because there are no fetchlands. People cry endlessly about Preordain instead. People will always cry about something. People cry that wizards won't print good spells anymore and that modern magic is all about smashing dumb creatures together and then 5 minutes later they cry that Wild Nacatl is unplayable and Brainstorm needs to be banned. Nobody has said anything to even TRY to convince me that this won't immediately happen when fetchlands leave. All formats are essentially solvable after a long enough period of time, the cream will rise to the top, and then people will start to cry about it. We've literally just had a ban announcement only 2 weeks ago and people instantly want to roll the stone up the hill again. How is it better if we have Ponder + Preordain in this situation rather than Ponder + Brainstorm?

Quote:

---

BS+Ponder+Fetchlands isnt "good" for the formats diversity. It has a track record of rendering every other cardselection and manafixing next to unplayable.

---

This is the most myopic attitude. There will always be a best thing that makes other things unplayable just by existing. Nobody plays preordain in Legacy because you have Brainstorm and Ponder. Nobody plays Serum Visions in Pauper because you have Ponder and Preordain. Are we supposed to just ban it all so the only playable cantrip in all formats is Opt? Tarmogoyf outclassing Watchwolf and Grizzly Bear? Time for a ban. No decklists with Shock? Lightning Bolt, I guess your time is up.

Nobody has made any argument to support the idea that fetches are this magical panacea, where we ban those and then we all live in perfect harmony afterwards. Nobody has made any objective argument as to why games with fetchlands are bad (apart from the shuffling/time aspect). The only problem people have managed to lay out is that the numbers are over some abitrary percentage so they need to be cut down, and I just don't see the point in riding that same hampster wheel over and over and over and over...

I like that Legacy is a format of powerful cards. I'm fine with certain cards being the best at whatever it is they do. I like that Legacy has a ton of unique and quirky decks like Manaless Dredge and Lands.

There are other formats that exist that can provide what it is that you seek, and they come with better tournament support from WotC. Why must we continue this circle jerk of constantly demanding for bans in a format that should have as small of a banlist as possible?

Hanni, I think there is an argument to be made that banning fetchlands allows the unban of some interesting cards. It’s not really a solved issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

Hanni, I think there is an argument to be made that banning fetchlands allows the unban of some interesting cards. It’s not really a solved issue.

---

For example, Astral Slide is much more likely to be playable in a format without fetchlands. And I think that's something we can all agree is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morgan_coke

For example, Astral Slide is much more likely to be playable in a format without fetchlands. And I think that's something we can all agree is a good thing.

---

I loved that deck (GW version).

Yes, let's ban the best cards so that worse cards become the best cards. And then we can ban those, too.

If Astral Slide becomes a playable Legacy deck, it will completely suppress :b::w: Clerics.

Good. Mother of Runes is too powerful, something needs to knock her down a peg. May as well be a grindy green and white deck...

I wasn't arguing a point, just revealing how talpa argues. It was intentionally 'dumb'. The point I was making that it was a leap to think that arguing for a healthier format (whether or not you agree what is healthy or not) doesn't mean a specific deck agenda is being pushed. What is being pushed is the health of the format.

Take the ban-fetch argument and deal with it on its own merits, or lack of it. Don't toss out childish accusations, which aren't even implied, that the 'ban-fetch-bandwagon' (news to me that this even exists) wants janky garbage decks to be tier 1. You might as well just say "you don't want fetches cuz you're a loooozer who plays bad decks."

Here's a real argument: wizards could continue banning cards and admitting many mistakes, or ban fetches and admit *one* mistake. Again, I have no stock I wotc, but from a damage control point of view, that's a net gain. Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finn

Hanni, I think there is an argument to be made that banning fetchlands allows the unban of some interesting cards. It’s not really a solved issue.

---

Cheers, mate. It's at least a consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches.

---

If fetches get banned, then people will come after Blood Moon. So this line of thinking need to fucking stop! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

Here's a real argument: wizards could continue banning cards and admitting many mistakes, or ban fetches and admit *one* mistake. Again, I have no stock I wotc, but from a damage control point of view, that's a net gain. Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches.

---

Technically, banning fetches would be admitting 10 mistakes, and would do up to $2000 in damage to each Legacy players collection value.

That's a pretty good reason to not ban them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brael

Technically, banning fetches would be admitting 10 mistakes, and would do up to $2000 in damage to each Legacy players collection value.

That's a pretty good reason to not ban them.

---

Agreed, but the argument for a fetch ban still intrigues me. I may not have a full set of duals, but I am heavily invested in fetches.

Can we at least recognize that there is at least a valid argument for banning fetches, even if ultimately it won't, and probably shouldn't, happen? My main peeve is that most players dismiss it out of hand without at least considering what it would do. Is it right to ban fetches? Probably not. But it's a thought provoking idea.

I mean, it's not like this thread actually affects bannings. It's all speculation and shop talk as far as I'm concerned.

I am not sure who started the ban fetches thing. I agree it would help the format in some ways to ban fetches. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. However, it's not the legacy I want to play. I like them, and want them to stay.

People who want them banned should just start a side format and try it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tsabo_tavoc

Edit: If DRS were banned due to colour pie infringement, WotC would have happily stated it. This is one of their favorite excuses after all.

---

Favorite excuses? Have they ever cited "color pie infringement" as a rationale for a ban before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brael

Technically, banning fetches would be admitting 10 mistakes, and would do up to $2000 in damage to each Legacy players collection value.

---

How would it cause them to lose that much in their collection's value? I expect most of the demand for them is because of Modern, which they'd still be legal in, so I think their value would only drop a small amount at most. Or are we banning them in Modern as well? Because I think there's actually less reason to ban them in Modern than in Legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mistercakes

People who want them banned should just start a side format and try it out.

---

It comes back to reserved list and dual prices; the supply side issue would have to be fixed before we could take a serious look at banning Fetchlands. You could figure things out about how legacy functions without Fetchlands, but what's the point? The format is too expensive to maintain widespread play, becomes too small to support GPs, and extreme price demands would create a long-term, pay-to-win environment (not much point playing when you win because opponent couldn't afford the optimal cards for optimal strategies). A trial run with no-proxies would also be heavily skewed towards Cavern/Vial (definitely), R/G Lands (probably), Elves (likely), and an overabundance of UW control (the blue deck with the lowest dual need, and little issue taking a turn off for direct Mirage Fetch substitutions). Minor cost-driven players would include Shadow, a Reanimator variant, an SnT deck. Delver-types probably move towards midrange as trying to get under other decks is a bit difficult when you can't really count on perfect mana with perfect velocity. Most three color decks would not be played in percentages representative of their competitiveness; I'd expect a notable exception in 3c decks using Grove/P-Fire [cheap bonus dual]. You can keep going down the list and the format is going to look and feel mostly similar, just a bit slower, more accommodating to diverse strategies, feature more 2c approaches to deckbuilding, but warped by price constraints.

The list of most ban-worthy cards isn't going to change much in terms of what's already there. Assuming we got past the financial impracticality of banning Fetchlands [this unbans DRS] your next suspects would be: Counterbalance [this unbans SDT], Probe [stays banned], Ancient Tomb. My list there is descending order of importance, but Ancient Tomb would probably move above CB, with Fetches banned, for the reason @Ace/Homebrew outlines [Turbo Moon]. Harder to speculate what other cards you'd have to legitimately add to that ban-worthy list in a post-Fetchland format, but given the predicable implications of financial realities warping the format I imagine Aether Vial would be a quick include. A more correct proposal would probably be to add Mox Diamond to the discussion.

The abstract answer to what legacy looks like without Fetchlands is just as playable and enjoyable as it has always been [in that it would be more diverse, more enjoyable]. What is strange has been the couple of people over the past three pages arguing that Fetchlands aren't the engine responsible for many/most of legacy's problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

If fetches get banned, then people will come after Blood Moon. So this line of thinking need to fucking stop! :mad:

---

Blood Moon was a card long before Fetches even existed, yet the card didnt cause the game to collapse in the years between The Dark and Onslaught. Maybe people simply built decks with that in mind.

It's kinda funny that throwing 1-2 basics in your deck seems to be the maximum tradeoff people are willing to accept in order to not fold to Bloodmoon, Choke, Wasteland and Back to Basics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Blood Moon was a card long before Fetches even existed, yet the card didnt cause the game to collapse in the years between The Dark and Onslaught. Maybe people simply built decks with that in mind.

---

So was Brainstorm. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

It's kinda funny that throwing 1-2 basics in your deck seems to be the maximum tradeoff people are willing to accept in order to not fold to Bloodmoon, Choke, Wasteland and Back to Basics.

---

Mostly because that's all you need...

I’m afraid I agree with kombatkiwi. Why would we want to remove more cards from a format that’s supposed to be every magic card minus power minus ‘joke’ cards? Shouldn’t we rather demand new cards printed explicitly for legacy? Like new ‘blue shell’ hoser or whatever you guys feel is so harmful to the format? :really:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

Mostly because that's all you need...

---

That's correct with virtual 10+ Basics thanks to fetches. I however question if the low effort it takes today to evade non-basic land hate should be any benchmark to judge the effect Bloodmoon & Co would have on a post-fetch Legacy.

I think the logic step to not get blown out by Bloodmoon & friends isnt to ban Bloodmoon next, but to adjust/dismiss greedy manabases.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MechTactical

I’m afraid I agree with kombatkiwi. Why would we want to remove more cards from a format that’s supposed to be every magic card minus power minus ‘joke’ cards? Shouldn’t we rather demand new cards printed explicitly for legacy? Like new ‘blue shell’ hoser or whatever you guys feel is so harmful to the format? :really:

---

Except it's not the case at all, otherwise Earthcraft & shit were all legal. In fact WotC has added plenty of cards to the Legacy ban list instead. The recent topic in this thread is, how much longer WotC wants to ban every card riding on top of the wave which is the cantrip shell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Maybe because nobody found a "serious question" between all the trolling, acting stupid on purpose and excessive LOLs?

---

There is a saying that you can discuss seriously with an idiot only to a certain limit before you lower yourself to his level.
To say it in a more 2.0 fashion: when I feel I want to waste some time, I apply my personal version of "don't feed the trolls" which is "answer to the trolls as a troll".

Here http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...=1#post1050877
I explained seriously why in my not-so-humble-opinion I think brainstorm+fetchlands is good for format diversity, for enjoying the game experience, and even for having a format where skill is a little bit more important than luck.

I even bothered to answer to some obviously wrong sentences like "The argument against Fetchlands is not controversial" by pointing out that if we are speaking of it and we have different OPINIONS about it, obviously it is controversial.
Maybe discussing the scenario could be interesting as an exercise of "WHAT IF" (personally, I think WOTC banning fetches it's something that will never happen, and it should never happen, so I don't find even the speculations entertaining), but certainly it's not something people can't disagree with.

Also I said something I think it should be very obvious: THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE ONE WHO IS MAKING THE CLAIM, not with the one who is refusing to believe it.
If you say "Fetchlands use pushes out more strategies than they enable" it's you that should prove it. Yes, Fox has made a list of HYPOTHESIS of what COULD happen, but he can't prove that's what WILL happen.

Almost everybody who tries to support his opinion that fetches should/could be banned comes out contradicting himself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You could figure things out about how legacy functions without Fetchlands, but what's the point? The format is too expensive to maintain widespread play, becomes too small to support GPs, and extreme price demands would create a long-term, pay-to-win environment

---

and that obviously would be a good thing?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The abstract answer to what legacy looks like without Fetchlands is just as playable and enjoyable as it has always been [in that it would be more diverse, more enjoyable]. What is strange has been the couple of people over the past three pages arguing that Fetchlands aren't the engine responsible for many/most of legacy's problems.

---

Really. What can I say if not LOL?!
What even are legacy's problems?
Can you illustrate why they are due to fetchlands and nothing else?

Fetchlands as an "Engine" (?!) that SUPPRESS format diversity?!
I asked for explicit examples of what kind of archetypes, or even decks, aren't playable BECAUSE fetches exist and ONLY BECAUSE fetches exists. I haven't seen anything.
As a counter-example, I illustrated why the line of reasoning "fetchlands-decks-are-all-the-same-thing" is bugged, and of course I used a "trolling" tone, because come on, YOU are saying that fetchland numbers in decklists are a sufficient reason for speaking of a dominance that reduces diversity, so all that I have to do is to refute this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talpa

Nic-fit vs canadian? they both have fetchland, so it's a mirror match!
Miracle vs delver? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!
Aggro Loam vs Infect? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!
Elves vs ANT? they both have fetchland, it's a mirror match!

---

Is this a trolling tone? Maybe. But it's also a relevant observation, and I repeat, nobody even tried to address this. So yes, I still believe that you all ignored, maybe on purpose, the serious arguments.

And with this I come to incidentally answer also to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

I wasn't arguing a point, just revealing how talpa argues. It was intentionally 'dumb'. The point I was making that it was a leap to think that arguing for a healthier format (whether or not you agree what is healthy or not) doesn't mean a specific deck agenda is being pushed. What is being pushed is the health of the format.

Take the ban-fetch argument and deal with it on its own merits, or lack of it. Don't toss out childish accusations, which aren't even implied, that the 'ban-fetch-bandwagon' (news to me that this even exists) wants janky garbage decks to be tier 1. You might as well just say "you don't want fetches cuz you're a loooozer who plays bad decks."

---

Sorry, but not sorry. I think that banning fetchland would result to be unhealty, so I think I have all the rights to say that pushing the fetchland ban would have the same results as if you were directly pushing stupid decks, even if it is not done on purpose and the ones who do that believe that they are pushing the healtiness of the format.
As I said, if I am speaking with someone who refuses to be reasonable, I don't feel bad for starting with accusations. Either he is willingly refusing to take in considerations the arguments of the opposing part (and if so, I am right to at least suppose that he has some kind of unspoken agenda) or he is incapable of doing it. I dealt with the ban-fetch arguments seriously in the post that I linked above, and again here. Maybe there are others that don't deal with the "don't ban fetchlands" argument with its own merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

that's a net gain. Many cards could conceivably become more fair without fetches

---

Maybe; and many others cards would become unplayable or be nerfed. Have you some kind of quantitative estimate for saying that the "enabled" ones would be more than the "disabled" ones? How can you account for the difference between the single-cards discussion and switch to the estimate of "archetypes" enabled and disabled by this hypothetical ban?
Then again, I'll start with accusations: either you are taking for granted something that it isn't, or (yes, I accuse) you have some kind of different agenda in mind. Maybe it's an unconscious thing, but still, you ARE implying that the cards that would be enabled would be better than the ones that would be disabled (but not explicitly explaining it)... and the only reason that I can imagine is that you like the former and/or dislike the latter.

I end this wall of text by addressing once again why I feel the need to start trolling: because some arguments are so evidently flawed that I almost can't believe someone is using them as arguments: apparently obvious "facts" that don't prove anything used as if they would be some kind of definitive proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

Blood Moon was a card long before Fetches even existed, yet the card didnt cause the game to collapse in the years between The Dark and Onslaught. Maybe people simply built decks with that in mind

---

Or maybe at the time many cards weren't printed yet that could allow a tier to emerge so clearly: magus of the moon, chalice of the void, trinisphere, simian spirit guide, chrome mox, hazoret, chandra, karn,...
Or even more simply, the vast majority of people chose to have fun by playing colored decks instead of hating them :laugh:

We banned needless for this?

I for my part, am pretty sure facing a troll, if I talk about the "engine" what Brainstorm+Ponder+Fetchlands form for all dominating control/tempo/midrange decks of the format and just get responses like "LOL! Windswept Heath is no engine! LMAO!"

There is a certain rock bottom of nonsense not worth adressing. This isnt 4chan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gheizen64

We banned needless for this?

---

Who are you referring to?
If it's me... haven't I also written many real arguments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

There is a certain rock bottom of nonsense not worth adressing. This isnt 4chan.

---

Yes, and that's you. Keep not addressing the serious arguments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

I for my part, am pretty sure facing a troll, if I talk about the "engine" what Brainstorm+Ponder+Fetchlands form for all dominating control/tempo/midrange decks of the format and just get responses like "LOL! Windswept Heath is no engine! LMAO!"

---

You should check your vocabulary for the meaning of "engine". That's not an engine. If you need an example that you (maybe) can better understand, Life From the Loam in a lands deck is an engine. Survival of the Fittest is an engine. Brainstorm + fetchlands, an engine it is not (I recall Yoda saying that).
Also, fetchlands (because you are NOT advocating for the brainstorm/ponder ban) are played also in non-blue deck, as I repeteadly said. And, blue fetchlands are run also in combo, not only in contro/tempo/midrange.

Before you ban me (LOL and LOL again) I'd like also to thank kombatkiwi.
I write too many lines when what I said really boils down to "you haven't and never will be able to prove that without fetchlands the format diversity will improve".
But even if you could, we will still be right to disagree that the new format would be BETTER, because as I said in my first post what you find "GOOD" is completely subjective.

I find this illuminating and encourage every ban-fetchland supporter to start a movement for removing the OP queen in chess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

- In every chess match in modern history each player has had 8 Pawns 2 Rooks 2 Bishops 2 Knights 1 King and 1 Queen. Every player has used the exact same pieces for over 100 years in a 16 v 16 mirror match and the game has remained popular
- In Yugioh, for example, the popular historical formats are 'Goat Format' or 'Tele-DAD format', times when there was a tier 0 midrange/control deck and at the top level of competition you would only face mirror matches where everybody's list was like 80% the same

Many players are not excited by the possibility of winning with many different decks and would rather play a familiar match where players have more of an opportunity to influence the outcome by making in-game decisions.

---

Also, please
acknowledge that there are a significant number of people who see your 48% [of fetchland presence in decklists] and don't give a shit. You're still acting like this data is a massive revelation and that once people know the truth everybody will immediately jump on your bandwagon

But of course, I am the troll, not the ones who I dare to call "conspiracist" because they mistake an irrelevant number for a Divine Revelation.

Fetchland Tendrils proves it's an engine. It was built entirely on the concept that if you cantrip and then shuffle often enough, you will eventually "pseudo-tutor" what you are looking for just based on stats. The deck was miles better than the deck it was derived from, IGGY Pop, and it was because of this. That same concept is used in control decks like Miracles to find answers, tempo decks to find a threat to keep their clock going, and by combo to pseudo-tutor.

If that's not an engine, I don't know what is.

Edit: frankly, I would argue that fetchlands are the patsies for the cantrip cartel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

Agreed, but the argument for a fetch ban still intrigues me. I may not have a full set of duals, but I am heavily invested in fetches.

Can we at least recognize that there is at least a valid argument for banning fetches, even if ultimately it won't, and probably shouldn't, happen? My main peeve is that most players dismiss it out of hand without at least considering what it would do. Is it right to ban fetches? Probably not. But it's a thought provoking idea.

I mean, it's not like this thread actually affects bannings. It's all speculation and shop talk as far as I'm concerned.

---

I can agree there's an argument to ban fetches, but I think that doing such a thing would require an equally powerful mana fixing land be introduced to the format because the fact is, players find 3 colors fun and if decks were reduced to two colors being the default, it would kill a lot of interest in the format. A couple pages ago I mentioned a potential design, which would solve the issues with fetches (namely the shuffling) but still allow for powerful mana fixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brael

I can agree there's an argument to ban fetches, but I think that doing such a thing would require an equally powerful mana fixing land be introduced to the format because the fact is, players find 3 colors fun and if decks were reduced to two colors being the default, it would kill a lot of interest in the format. A couple pages ago I mentioned a potential design, which would solve the issues with fetches (namely the shuffling) but still allow for powerful mana fixing.

---

I really appreciate this post, you can't possibly know how much. This is what encourages conversation. Cheers!

Regarding whether fetchlands + cantrips is an engine, I can't see the difference between grove/fires, loam/cycle lands, crucible/canopy (that was a thing once), crop rotation/utility lands, knight/ lands, and fetchlands/cantrips. They are all engines that perform a specific function that decks are built around. Mr. Talpa, this is an obvious fact, and is obviously the easiest engine to include with a near-zero opportunity cost.

@talpa the bar for skill with Brainstorm is pretty low with Fetchlands because you have these cards that can barely be interacted with providing shuffles, perfect mana with perfect velocity, and putting a land in the graveyard. There is a more minor effect of increasing the EV of every draw each time 1 land drawn pulls a second out of the deck. It's not that a deck like ANT can't have the most complex Brainstorm decisions in the format, but Fetchlands set a really low bar across the board. Fetchlands do not increase diversity, the only competitive decks that don't use them are Dredge variants, Cavern/Vial variants, and stompy variants - pretty sure that's about the complete list of competitive decks anyone could expect to run into on a routine basis which have no Fetchlands. Greedy mana bases, doing things like playing 4 colors with some basic lands, can only compete because of Fetchlands - losing these decks is a net positive change in format diversity (not that they're really lost, as you could run them with Mirage fetches, opting for greater risk of hostile interaction). Since you'd latch onto "net positive change" I'll rehash: a large increase in 2c decks and a general slowing-down of the format allowing other strategies.

Fetchlands are engine cards, it's not hard to see why Brainstorm latches onto free shuffles/perfect mana/perfect velocity and on the backside why cards like DRS/threshold/delve use the other resource it provides in the graveyard - note also how these are different resource pools, so you play cards that hit both sides of the Fetchland engine together. There's little need to continue discussion as to whether or not Fetchlands are engine or not, they simply are. With very few exceptions (listed in previous paragraph) you can't compete with Fetchland decks unless you yourself also run Fetchlands - this isn't diverse, it's not optional.

In your last post where I've been quoted @talpa, you've missed the point of everything I said as well as the fact that I was discussing the hypothetical of a no Fetchland format were it to be introduced today. Objectively positive goals (increasing player base, increasing competitive outlets/strategies) were alluded to and interpreted within the context of a Fetchland ban. Go back a few posts and remember the comment about the only objectively positive aspect of Fetchlands is keeping the cost of the format down - that positive is only held up by the artificial decision to uphold the RL. These aren't red herrings I keep throwing in, but a constant over the years from my posts in this forum - I discuss cards based on logical external metrics. The conclusions I draw from that starting point do not represent the only conclusion possible, but it does display how I get to the points I am making because a discussed card/change represents a decreased player base, decreased diversity, and/or insurmountable one-sided advantage (in rare cases, exceedingly poor card design by itself warrants discussion). So I'll make this clear again: at no point in the passage you're quoting did I say or imply that decreasing access to format would be a positive change.

What is your external metric @talpa? Or are you really trying to seriously argue that Fetchlands aren't engine cards pushing out non-Fetchland decks? The only constant in your posts seems to be that you like the idea of 4c good stuff; and yes, it would probably disappear [from competitive play] if Fetchlands got axed. Liking 4c good stuff is a minority opinion, it's fine to enjoy playing legacy that way, but that style isn't exactly diverse as everyone else keeps facing more and more of the exact same usual suspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brael

I can agree there's an argument to ban fetches, but I think that doing such a thing would require an equally powerful mana fixing land be introduced to the format because the fact is, players find 3 colors fun and if decks were reduced to two colors being the default, it would kill a lot of interest in the format.

---

That's a productive post indeed and sry that your previous post got burried. A fetchless legacy would open a lot of space for potential trilands to be printed and see play.

@Fox
I apprechiate your complex posts outlining the fact that we not only discuss a potential removal of 10 cards but something greater, affecting all of the formats structure. I think you waste your time if you see yourself forced to elaborate basic MTG terms like cardquality engines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

Your problem is that you simply state that ubiquity is bad, you don't explain why and you assume everybody who disagrees with you is trolling:


1.) Ubiquity of a card in the format is not inherently a bad thing

2). Nobody has put any effort into predicting what will actually happen to the format if fetchlands are banned

---

1. Yes it generally is. It is one of Wizards criteria for justifying a card ban. Consider mental misstep. You can also look at Vintage. The power level of old cards vs new cards means that fewer decks are in the meta. Ubiquity lessens diversity. You could even argue that at some point ubiquity will create a game like chess where everyone plays the same deck and it comes down to who plays it best. I dont know about you but I dont want to play a game like chess with significant limitations.

2. You dont need to predict what will happen. Just look back on historical data of what the format was like before fetch lands existed. There are people that comment on it but you choose not to listen. The format will demand that you now consider manabase as part of deck construction instead of just fetches + duals = success. It will allow other decks to be played in the format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hanni

Yes, let's ban the best cards so that worse cards become the best cards. And then we can ban those, too.

---

Thats not really how it works...Additionally, thats not really one of the criteria for wizards when looking at whether to ban a card or not. Granted they have shitty criteria anyways and most people here (mtgthesource) would probably argue that they could do a better job at creating the format.

One thing wizards COULD do but won't because they are stubborn is use MTGO to create test formats where certain card are banned. They could use that data to see if banning certain cards has the desired effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ace/Homebrew

If fetches get banned, then people will come after Blood Moon. So this line of thinking need to fucking stop! :mad:

---

Nope. Blood moon has been around since the dark (almost as long as duals) and it was never a problem before because people didn't always play super greedy mana bases like they do now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Seth

Favorite excuses? Have they ever cited "color pie infringement" as a rationale for a ban before?

How would it cause them to lose that much in their collection's value? I expect most of the demand for them is because of Modern, which they'd still be legal in, so I think their value would only drop a small amount at most. Or are we banning them in Modern as well? Because I think there's actually less reason to ban them in Modern than in Legacy.

---

Color pie infringement is not something they will ever cite because they created a color that does nothing without other colors. Blue's color identify is one of the biggest problems. It does nothing by itself. Notice the lack of real win conditions listed for blue... It will almost always be paired with another color outside of merfolk because it needs another color to do something aggressive. In time, they may print enough awesome delver / TNN like creatures and we'll all be playing mono blue creature beats.

Quick look at color identities (im sure this could be better and is not intended to be all inclusive)

Green: Mana creatures, creature buffs, Big Creatures, Fair
Red: Fast creatures, Cheap spells, direct damage, random
Black: Discard, powerful effects with drawbacks (cards for life, fast mana, mana efficient creatures)
White: Efficient creatures, Creatures with powerful abilities, hatebears, protection / lifegain
Blue: Counterspells, card draw, tutors, trickery


Oh and banning fetch lands wouldnt really drop their value much. They would still be played in modern and vintage, but probably wouldn't be reprinted until their value appreciated again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

Regarding whether fetchlands + cantrips is an engine, I can't see the difference between grove/fires, loam/cycle lands, crucible/canopy (that was a thing once), crop rotation/utility lands, knight/ lands, and fetchlands/cantrips

---

I can see a very relevant difference.
An engine works continuously, repeteadly, without the need of more cards.
Grove+PFires? You only need one of each one to keep going.
Loam? You don't even need cycle lands in addition, it's an engine on its own.
Crucible+Canopy, Kinght? They work on their own.

Brainstorm+fetchlands? they don't replace themselves, once you used your brainstorm it gets binned, once you use your fetchland it's gone. They don't go on and on unless you draw more copies of them. It's a pretty big difference. (of course you could say that a cantrip helps you to find another different one; but that's a completely different thing)

Anyway, it's just a name for the thing. I'd say that brainstorm+fetchlands is a FEATURE that concurs to define WHAT THE FORMAT IS (along with other cards like Force of Will or Wasteland). If you want to call that an engine, I can't stop you, but there is a difference with the other ones cited (and I haven't seen anyone call for the ban of those, event though if this thread keeps going this way I don't know what we can expect, there is no limit to the craziness of some people).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple713

You dont need to predict what will happen. Just look back on historical data of what the format was like before fetch lands existed. (...)
Blood moon has been around since the dark (almost as long as duals) and it was never a problem before because people didn't always play super greedy mana bases like they do now

---

Actually you do need to predict (and nobody can). Because old formats are just that, old format. Neither blood moon alone nor fetchlands are the only thing you can consider, since there were plenty of prints and modification since those days, and you can't estimate the behaviour of a complex system ignoring all variables but one. Hell, even the real world is changed meanwhile, and it affects how the game is played: nobody was netdecking in 1994 (and yes, I was playing in those times).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

the only constant in your posts seems to be that you like the idea of 4c good stuff

---

You not only continue to put in my mouth words I never wrote, but you are even ignoring that I already denied that. I never played czech pile in Legacy (nor 4c delver). I actually hated since day1 that deathrite, while giving birth to some decks that I personally found fun like shardless, enabled things like jund to become competitive (and that was one of the dumb, good stuff decks, even if it was long before czech pile and even if it was only three colors). I already said that my line of reasoning applies to a large amount of decks.
Yes, I do like Turbo Xerox decks. They can be anything from monocolored to tri-color. And I'd guess they would survive even if fetchlands would get banned, even more so if you plan to unban things like treasure cruise or dig through time believing that fetchlands are the only thing allowing the delve mechanic. If you mantain access to cantrips, you can easily fill your graveyard with things like brainstorm, ponder, preordain, even thought scour if needed, and know what? indeed even in pauper you get to play gurmag anglers easily if you want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Since you'd latch onto "net positive change" I'll rehash: a large increase in 2c decks and a general slowing-down of the format allowing other strategies

---

Aaaaah finally we got you, and with you, maybe many others on the ban-fetchland bandwagon: it's not a question of format diversity, it's not me that I like 4c good stuff decks (which I don't). It's YOU that BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES, WOULD LIKE TO SEE SLOW, BICOLOR DECKS, thinking that would be a better experience.
Maybe it's true what MrSafety said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Safety

You might as well just say "you don't want fetches cuz you're a loooozer who plays bad decks"

---

I completely disagree, but you have the right to have your own LIKES and dislikes, as long as you are honest with that and you also admit that others can like different things and they have the same right as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

it's not hard to see why Brainstorm latches onto free shuffles/perfect mana/perfect velocity

---

And maybe it's the same bandwagon that really, reeeaaally would like to see brainstom banned? But since they have troubles they try to reach the same goal in more obscure ways.
I have news for you. On April 15th Aaron Forsythe clearly stated that brainstorm is here to remain, while replying on twitter to a question about workshop in vintage: It's one of the "pillars of the format" that makes it unique and players tolerate/love. It's like Brainstorm in Legacy. Every saturation metric we could ever invent would point to it being banned, but people love it. Transgressive stuff needs a place to live
And, though this one is just an hypothesis like yours, I'd bet that brainstorm would live also in a world without fetchland. You can easily fit shuffle effect in tutors: zenith, entomb... and since you like so much bicolors deck, I'd build a UW deck with brainstorms and JTMS, and stoneforge mystics and squadron hawks to shuffle (and the second ones also to transform a brainstorm from card quality to real card quantity advantage). Guess what? For a while it was legal in standard, and it was one of the most polarized, UNFUN metagames, with a clear tier0 deck, and you would face mirrors all day. Miracles of fetchlands (of course, there were fetches in the format... Really don't know why WOTC didn't ban them and instead chose something else to hit).
(I repeat since it seems you continue to miss that: brainstorm is no ancestral recall...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Fetchlands do not increase diversity, the only competitive decks that don't use them are Dredge variants, Cavern/Vial variants, and stompy variants (...) What is your external metric @talpa? Or are you really trying to seriously argue that Fetchlands aren't engine cards pushing out non-Fetchland decks

---

My metric is format diversity; I measure that by counting the number of different strategies that are viable. In legacy, almost any deck can put up results, even though of course I'd admit that certain decks "push out" of the format other less-performing decks. Tcdecks is listing 80 different archetypes, not counting rogues. I'd say legacy is a pretty diverse format as of now (no, I should say, even before the deathrite ban). But again, guess what? Before the deathrite ban, red stompy could easily be the best tier deck, and indeed look at the GP Birmingham results. Guess another thing? I don't know on MTGO, but in the real world, on paper, people don't change deck easily, many play their pet-deck, and the Legacy format overall is really less competitive than, say, standard. So the best performing decks don't really "push out" completely anything.
Also, I'd say that dredge, merfolks, goblin, death and taxes, red stompy, steel stompy, eldrazi, 12 post, is a long enough list of competitive decks withouth fetchlands.

But most of all, I'd really like if the ban-fetchland supporters cared to answer just a single question, in regard of "format diversity": do you think canadian threshold, show and tell, miracles, reanimator, aggro loam, elves, ANT are each the same and equal to one another? Do they all have the same gameplan, do you have the same game experience playing with or against each one of them as if they were all identical?

If not (and I can't see how you can seriously mantain the contrary) you cannot arbitrarily divide the metagame in "decks with fetchlands" and "decks withouth fechlands" because there are many other things that define a deck build and strategy.
So, you have no solid ground to say that fetchlands decrease the format diversity, even less so when you can't accurately predict what a format withouth them would be.

To say that they diminish the format diversity using only their number as an argument, is like saying that vintage diversity is diminished because everybody (except dredge) plays black lotus (not only turbo xerox but even workshop decks). So, should they ban black lotus? Or maybe you can accept that vintage is DEFINED as a FORMAT by the fact that you get to play the most broken cards ever printed. In the same way, LEGACY IS DEFINED by the fact that you can play brainstorm (fetchlands, force of will, wasteland). You should just accept that, or go play another format instead of trying to ruin it for the ones that enjoy that.
(Not that you can succeed in that; and before you start again accusing me of liking turbo xerox: of course, but you don't see me arguing that WOTC should ban blood moon, magus of the moon, chalice of the void, trinisphere and sol-lands. I accept they are part of what the format is).

C'mon man, Brainstorm/DRS/delve/threshold these are all spokes on the wheel, and they all connect to Fetchlands. You could keep banning every spoke that connects to the wheel (@Lemnear outlined this in detail earlier), but even if that were done you'd still be left with the fact that by themselves Fetchlands have fractions of Mana Severance tagged on for free making them better than a normal mana producing land in any reasonable scenario. Those spokes are fine even if poorly designed, just like the entire dredge mechanic is fine since it's a spoke that can't connect to the wheel called Bazaar of Baghdad. Your posts insist on treating the symptoms and denying that a disease is the unifying cause. Brainstorm and DRS are fine without Fetchlands.

There's not much point continuing a discussion if you don't see the parallels in such a metaphor. It's fine to have a different opinion, but you have failed to lay out a logical basis for your claim. Look at your stuff in response to @apple713: "nobody can [predict]..." When did @apple713 say that he/she is the infallible source of information on this topic; that was a hypothesis they put out with a logical foundation. Right and wrong don't matter, being reasonable does and that comment passes the test - @Ace/Homebrew's opposite comment about Moon is also reasonable...my comment that Ancient Tomb is probably the card we should really be discussing with this Blood Moon sub-topic is also reasonable. You've offered nothing other than a diversionary attack without any substance underneath.

You just shot down @apple713 for making a hypothesis citing pre-Onslaught experience. In the same post you expect us to listen to your expert opinion predicting legacy implications based on a standard deck you played? really?