Omg ... Nothing more to say...Quote:
Originally Posted by death
Printable View
Omg ... Nothing more to say...Quote:
Originally Posted by death
A lot of people arguing for completely non-interactive decks :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Just because your pet deck isn't as good as it used to be doesn't mean the format is broken.
You got me wrong ... I found it ridiculous to claim that Stompy should be a Deck-to-beat and toe-to-toe with something like blue and one of it's flavors of the month aka BUG tempoQuote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
Sarcasm poorly tranfers in a forum
No I am on your side and knew it was sarcasm. I got it but we're just both confused.
Haha, I must say that this is such a heated topic.
Look at all of the vitriol in this thread. It's beautiful, but I would get back more on topic before the thread gets locked.
Polls are kind of a cold way to gauge and you can only glean so much from the replies in this thread.
Personally, I'm in the camp that believes that the "Brainstorm menace" is a fabricated threat.
If it's not one card, it's another. Right now, Brainstorm is in the crosshairs. I just wish people would chill the hell out and not complain so damn much.
We already lost some great cards due to bannings recently. I would, instead of Brainstorm's banning, would like to see responsible R&D from them. It's not consumer friendly to have them acquire cards aftermarket and then tell them they blew $x for nothing.
I'd also like to see them print some reactive answers. Remember Tsabo's Web? There are other examples if you remember.
After all, the zeitgeist and what people play at different points in time is often based on perceptions or other influences/cultural behaviors. Which is why one metagame in the same format can be so different (god I wish I had Europe's meta, for example).
I think that new hate is enough to make a strategy fall out of favor until people move on to something else. We don't and won't, I would argue, really experience a "runTheHate.dec or lose to it" meta.
The closest thing we have to this is Dredge, in my opinion, and that deck still exists.
Do you find yourself saying "Aw man, he cast Brainstorm! I'll scoop" when people play it? I didn't think so. Banned cards should have that feeling. All of the hoopla like "Well, you just don't know that you've already lost because that is the majestic power of Brainstorm" I'm not buying it.
TL;DR: Don't ban brainstorm.
Voted NO.
Why you would ban cards? I dont get it instead you should cry for better cards in the other colors.
It would be so easy too push the other colors. But you just want ban cards becouse you cant handle them. SO many counter cards for brainstorm and co:
Chains of Mephistopheles
Grand Abolisher he need to brainstorm in his turn = less mana
if he has no mana open = discard
Ethersworn Canonist
and more.
So dont ban cards you think are too strong ask for cards in your color...
Voted no. I wouldn't fault WotC for banning Brainstorm, because it's almost impossible to argue that the card isn't too powerful. However, I think it's a big gamble to ban it, because it simply goes against what the vast majority of Legacy players want. If you read the GP Amsterdam coverage, they basically acknowledged that Brainstorm isn't fair, but that it's still an integral part of Legacy.
The fact that blue seems to be getting all the best cards in nearly every new set doesn't help matters either. At this point, I don't think Adam Barnello's idea of unbanning Survival is unreasonable.
I find hilarious that people are even considering Chain as a counter to brainstorm. A 2 mana enchantment to counter a 1 mana instant? Chain is worse than meddling mage on brainstorm. Not to mean is cost inefficient and casting chain (which does nothing, by itself) is like a tempo black hole.
Its funny that you cant think. Its not only for brainstorm its for card draw but thats too much for you. It was just an example what Chain can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gheizen64
That i even need to write that here gj man.
The only consistent card draw that is played alongisde Brainstorm is ponder. Not even JTMS is played that much after the MM ban. And you listing a 2 mana answer (not even a real counter, just virtual card advantage) for a 1 mana spell mean you have some hazy understanding of the fundamental of this game else everyone would play removal that cost more than the removed threat. There's a reason spell pierce and snare see play. There's a reason if the answer for weenie decks isn't simple removal but cards like pyroclasm. Mana efficiency. Playing a 2 mana enchantment that blank 7-8 1-mana instants in the opponent library (1 on average in hand) is the epitome of an inefficient answer, i mean, for the lovecraftian gods, it's arguably worse than surgical extraction on a brainstorm on a grave, you tell me that's efficient? And that cost 0 mana.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruser
You can't really play cards to answer 1 mana instants, no matter what you've been told. The only card that came close was MM, card parity and mana advantage plus it was never dead when the opponent didn't have brainstorm. But MM is dead and gone now. The other possibility are cards that are also threats on their own, obviously.
Efficient market theory is used strictly by tossers.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
50% is a lot worse in this case than 80%, you're talking more than six times as likely a chance you'll go two turns without flipping. I think Delver will still be playable, but in fewer decks. "SignificantlY" worse but not outside of the Legacy playable range.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
Translation: a deck is good because I said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
I only play legacy. I like Brainstorm. Don't touch my game!
In my humble opinion, Brainstorm should not be banned. It is an insanely powerful card, that's sure, but it also happens to be one of the pillars that hold up legacy itself. Banning brainstorm will cause a major wave of chaos and disorder in the format. More likely, it will lead to a chain-ban of other key cards, enlarging the already long banlist. As stated previously, banning brainstorm will cause a powering-down of most blue-based decks. This will lead to the viral diffusion of combo decks and more risky-but-rewarding gameplans. A deck we're all thinking about is Belcher. Blue decks would be forced to mull hard just to see an active force in the opening hand. Non-blue, non-combo decks would be forced to completely modify their game asset, bringing in the maindeck cards tipically designed for sideboards, or which could serve only for the purpose of stopping straightforward combo decks. The metagame, talking with havoc in my eyes (yes i'm not an optimistic person, i just tend to se the darkest part in every situation), will be reduced to a combo-or-hate type of metagame, similar to SotF times.
This will then lead to the entire redesigning of the banlist, giving more and more instability to the metagame. And this is the worst scenario I can thnk about.
And sorry if i put too many words in the tl;dr paragraph and so few explaining the fundamental concept.
When blue-based control decks are doing well, it is a sign that it is a healthy format. This is because those decks tend to be the most interactive. They must sacrifice offensive potential in order to run defensive cards.
Defensive implies that it is defending against something, namely your opponent's moves. This signifies interaction and thus how Magic should be played. Not just two combo decks racing one another.
With Brainstorm, one must ask: does it increase player interaction?
- AKA: Modern format. Control is crap, combo is nerfed to the ground, and at least 50% of the winning decks are Zoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreg
-Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intet's Attendant
Anyway, RGB Goblins is a good call now. You don't see it in top8s because it's the most difficult aggro deck to play. And most Goblin players don't know how to properly handle the silver bullets, Matron, Vial triggers, etc etc. Also most builds you see on TCdecks have something wrong in them/are misbuilt.
Ps: Don't ban Brainstorm. I need it to find Fow when I'm on the play against a Lackey...
No, it shouldn't be banned.
The critiques of these types of threads are all true. There are people who play Legacy that are alarmist and freak out when a card is perceived as "dominating". Affinity, Flash, CawBlade, and to a less extent Survival of the Fittest are all archetypes that were oppressive. I use the word oppressive versus dominant because contextually, they mean different things and when there is an oppressive deck, something ought to be banned; dominating cards should not be.
Dominate, by definition, means to have a commanding influence and oppressive means to unjustly inflict hardship. Does Brainstorm have a dominating effect on Legacy? Yes, it has a "commanding influence". However, I would contend its not oppressive. People don't (and shouldn't) design decks to defeat Brainstorm.deck because such a deck does not exist. By definition, eras in Magic such as the Black Summer, Affinity, Flash, and CawBlade were metagames when one homogenized deck pushed every other deck out of the format. Even if there were variations in those decks, it was usually done to gain an advantage in the mirror or combat the decks that were designed explicitly to take down the oppressive deck. This seems to fit the notion of inflicting unjust hardship and I would therefore classify these decks as oppressive. Hence, cards such as Necropotence, Flash, the Affinity engine, and Jace/Stoneforge Mystic were banned. However, the presences of Brainstorm does not push every other archetype out of contention in Legacy. As as evidenced by the last SCG top eight when three of the decks in the top eight did not feature Blue. Not to mention that 7 out of the top 16 decks did not have Brainstorm. The American metagame is heavily influenced by the SCG events which are driven by circuit Pros (who are heavy Blue proponents) and the legions of netdeckers....I mean subscribers that emulate them. So is it really that surprising that the Legacy Metagame is driven by legions of blue.deck players which gives off the perception of an unhealthy metagame?
The sick irony of this whole exercise is that it doesn't matter. WotC does not have a transparent policy when it comes to criteria for banning a card so we're at the whim of whatever Tom LaPille and the other powers that be are feeling on the day (or how terribly they got their butts kicked on MtGO that morning).
So 7 out of 16 decks did not play Brainstorm. And you use that as a sign of balance if only 9/16 decks play the same card 4 times? This is actually more dominating than Affinity back in the day. And also oppressive. There were other decks that were good when Affinity was banned, they were just heavily metagames against Affinity. And the same thing happens today. Merfolk and Maverick just happen to be good against the majority of the blue Brainstorm based decks and that is the main reason why they are contenders so on top of the 60+% Brainstorm decks you have the rest filled up with decks that are good against Brainstorm deck. That is the same oppression as back then with Affinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
All of your examples are of dominant decks not cards. Don't you think comparing Brainstorm, a card, to decks is a little unfair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tao
Fetchlands/Force of Will are as prevalent as Brainstorm, that doesn't mean they should be banned. Whatever the best card for a job is will be played, banning won't ever change that.
What the fuck are you talking about, "80%"?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
You haven't made an argument for why this card should be banned and are just being contrary to some posters you clearly have a beef with. Stop talking about irrelevant economics and actually make a case for your side rather than only trying to divert.
Staple != Oppressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tao
Brainstorm is a staple, not an oppressive card. It's not Skullclamp, it's not Survival of the Fittest, it's not Flash.
please unban gush
I'm all for this if they ban basic island and island duals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catitas
Look you can argue a card has a large presence in a top 16 but that doesn't mean it's banworthy. Swords to plowshares and force of will are in the same boat as brainstorm when it comes to how much play they see but we don't see people arguing that swords to plowshares is wrecking the format or FoW sans DrJones.
Don't unban gush. Actually, unban gush so I can wreck even more face with doomsday because gush is ridiculous in that deck for drawing into a pile.
I hope when Dec. rolls around WotC gives us a present instead of taking our favorite one away i.e. they unban something like land tax or earthcraft.
Fixed that for you. Even if you can't abuse Gush in Legacy the way you can in Vintage (especially on the mana-generation side), it is still insanely powerful. Tempo, Combo, Aggro-control decks would all pack Gush. Gush also ROFLs at Wasteland. Whoever even thinks about unbanning Gush is simply ignoring other targets on the banned list that could be safely unbanned. Gush is definitely not the safer cards to unban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Ritual
Also, can someone tell me how different is this thread compared to the other 10 threads on banning blue cards and unbanning non-blue cards in the Source?
Hi there, I'd love to explain that for you. You see, in the title it has "Snapcaster Mage". The other threads don't. Aside from that subtle difference, the same arguments have been used/refuted/reissued/re-refuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metalwalker
Please stand by for thread #11, discussing whether we should or should not ban Brainstorm.
this one has a pollQuote:
Originally Posted by Metalwalker
I voted "No".
I played my first bigger event last weekend with Snapcaster Mage in my 60, and I think I flashed back Brainstorm once all day. For most of the part, I saved them to play reactive spells or utility spells, like Spell Snare, Lightning Bolt, Surgical Extraction, Stifle etc. etc.
Needless to say, being able to flash it back for 1UU while getting a 2/1 on the side adds a lot of value to Brainstorm (flashback obviously adds lots of value to any card), but I still don't think it's ban-worthy. It sure is powerful, but it is a pillar of Legacy, and I think many players enjoy the format because they are able to play with these "broken", skill-testing spells.
<hyperbole>
Naw, let's ban the hell out of it, gather around and sing "ding dong the witch is dead" and then go back to play redundant creature decks, that don't need any silly filter spells!
</hyperbole>
This seems to be status quo confirmation bias. You just list decks where cards were banned as oppressive, but I don't see a reason why you wouldn't have described them as merely "dominant" had nothing been banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
From the context you might pick up that this is the estimate I am giving for your chances of swinging for 3 the turn after you drop a Delver.Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderwaterGuy
Yes I have. Also efficient market theory is perfectly relevant here; it precisely describes the argument that, "if it were so good, people would be doing it already," or, "If some people are doing it, it must be good."Quote:
You haven't made an argument for why this card should be banned and are just being contrary to some posters you clearly have a beef with. Stop talking about irrelevant economics and actually make a case for your side rather than only trying to divert.
Then restate your reasons because all I have seen you do is pull a GOP (aka, attack the other position without offering a counter-offer).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
If you critique is that I listed only decks in which cards were banned...fair enough. I would describe the Jund Standard as being oppressive but nothing was banned from that metagame. Jund Standard top eights were only surpassed by UW Cawblade in terms of their percentages in top eights during that period.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Your critique also fails to address the rest of my post in which the decks I describe were homogenized into one deck with the variations existing only to get an edge in the mirror. Their linch pin card(s) were so dominate that they crossed the threshold into becoming oppressive. Therefore, the banning of cards such as Necropotence were justified.
Additionally, there is no Brainstorm.deck. The variety of Blue decks that exist lends to the diversity of the format. BUG, RUG, UW, UWx, UWG are vastly different decks with each color combination having different variants within it; for example, there is a BUG Landstill deck and tempo deck. Additionally, each of these decks have varying early, middle, and late game goals with different paths to victory. They also aren't designed to take an "edge" in the mirror since a deck like Team America approaches the game very differently than a RUG Counterbalance list. The argument about Brainstorm being oppressive (and therefore ban worthy) would only be true if there was a low number of viable decks that did not contain Brainstorm. Off the top of my head: GW Maverick, Goblins, BW Disruption, Zoo, Merfolk, Dredge, Enchantress, BWG Tempo/Control, Aggro Loam, Elf Combo, Imperial Painter, Team Italia, and Burn are non-Brianstorm decks that have placed within the last six months of major events. I'd say non-Brainstorm decks plenty diverse.
One thing I'd like to point out, and this is irrelevant in terms of the Brianstorm ban discussion but very relevant in terms of bannings in general.
Deckbuilders thrive on stable metagames. A settled metagame has points that can be attacked. No deck is unassailable. As long as the tools are out there for different strategies (and in Legacy, the pool is big enough that this is almost always true) than the ones currently holding sway, a clever builder can create a deck that exploits these flaws without ruining the deck's game against the rest of the field. It won't beat everything, but it will beat the top deck(s) and enough of the rest of the field to perform well. On the other hand, a a semi-settled field is a horrible thing. There are enough decks that are tuned enough that you can't just count on superior construction skills to buy you wins but the field is not stable enough to have hard nodes you can attack.
It's been very difficult for me to come up with viable creations lately because there has been so much flux in the format. Just about the time I had NO RUG and U/W Stoneblade down, MM was banned. Things have been in flux for the last 7 months or so and it's fiendishly difficult to create a deck that I feel like would give me the best chance to win. Every time something gets banned, people who like to stick to their pet deck rejoice and people like me who prefer to play something fresh and innovative gnash our teeth.
Eventually, enough rapid change leads to people just giving up on trying to get ahead of a metagame. It's like trying to run on quicksand. Then you don't have people left to create the new decks to avoid the stagnation, leading to more cries for banning.
Before Snapcaster Mage and Mental Misstep everyone agreed the format was more or less balanced. The problem now is more and more good blue spells are being printed. A combo deck for example now has near zero of chance winning against 8x Spell Snare 8x Spell Pierce 8x Stifle 8x Flusterstorm 8x Surgical Extraction 8x Extirpate 8x Thoughtseize 8x Brainstorm + Force of Will. For an aggro comparison, replace those with 8x StP, 8x PtE, 8x Lightning Bolt, Fire//Ice, Dismember, Ghastly Demise etc. etc..
I can't say a format is diverse when almost every blue deck is an iteration of the following cards:
4 Brainstorm
4 Snapcaster Mage
4 Tarmogoyf/Stoneforge Mystic
4 Force of Will
4 Spell Snare
If you haven't seen these suspects in your meta yet, don't worry you'll get there.
I voted yes because of reasons like 'Don't ban brainstorm because it's a pillar of the format, because it's nostalgic and fun, I use it to dig for Force.' Go play Ponder then. They don't convince me when the issue on the table is balance of the format. I have played Brainstorm back when it wasn't even a staple and when Bad River is 'the' fetchland. I still play Brainstorm now and I won't be happy to see it go.
But when games hinges on card X (2 crappy cards + fetchland), casting X = 3 new cards, this causes problems. Same as when a top deck card X yields a card that is 3 cards more deep at instant speed FTW = busted. We've seen a lot of games go like that. This is why Brainstorm is comparable to the Vintage card Ancestral Recall and its consistency makes non-blue an inferior choice.
And don't think that even without Brainstorm, Snapcaster Mage will be harmless. Snapcaster is the root of all this (like a broken record..)
No, you haven't. You just ignored the arguments you didn't like.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragoFireheart
You know, -snip-, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.
The next time you decide to accuse me of not forming actual arguments I want you to literally -snip- Seriously? I know you know you are crossing the line.
Ignoring Drago happened awhile ago. He ignores data and misrepresents arguments against him. Pretty typical.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Okay, so this is a merely quantitative distinction? Can we get rough guidelines on where dominance turns into oppression? I mean traditionally in strategic terms, "dominance" denotes that no other strategy actually makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fossil4182
I mean I am not actually seeing that much variety between most Legacy decks. A significant portion of them are just three color aggro-control buffet, with the actual cards almost identical within colors and blue by far being the most usual core.Quote:
Your critique also fails to address the rest of my post in which the decks I describe were homogenized into one deck with the variations existing only to get an edge in the mirror. Their linch pin card(s) were so dominate that they crossed the threshold into becoming oppressive. Therefore, the banning of cards such as Necropotence were justified.
Well first off we're not discussing the past six months, we're discussing the past month or so since Innistrad came out. The past six months extends not only before Innistrad but before New Phyrexia- completely irrelevant to the current meta.Quote:
Additionally, there is no Brainstorm.deck. The variety of Blue decks that exist lends to the diversity of the format. BUG, RUG, UW, UWx, UWG are vastly different decks with each color combination having different variants within it; for example, there is a BUG Landstill deck and tempo deck. Additionally, each of these decks have varying early, middle, and late game goals with different paths to victory. They also aren't designed to take an "edge" in the mirror since a deck like Team America approaches the game very differently than a RUG Counterbalance list. The argument about Brainstorm being oppressive (and therefore ban worthy) would only be true if there was a low number of viable decks that did not contain Brainstorm. Off the top of my head: GW Maverick, Goblins, BW Disruption, Zoo, Merfolk, Dredge, Enchantress, BWG Tempo/Control, Aggro Loam, Elf Combo, Imperial Painter, Team Italia, and Burn are non-Brianstorm decks that have placed within the last six months of major events. I'd say non-Brainstorm decks plenty diverse.
Secondly, the diversity of other decks doesn't really matter if those decks don't put up numbers.
Still upset about the other topic where you showed yo clearly don't understand why Brainstorm is bad in merfolk? Get over it. I refuse to even read your other points when you fail to understand basic usages of Legacy staples like Brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Status quo confirmation bias much? I provide data for my points (ex: brainstorm being bad in merfolk) but you dismiss it. You then pretend that if you use data it's ok? Lol what a hypocrite! You are hilarious IBA! :laugh:Quote:
You know, fuck off, I specifically compiled the data on Brainstorm's penetration in top 8's. I've brought actual data to the table. What the fuck have you posted? Some mindless bullshit about how combo decks don't need Brainstorm because they can just run Ponder.
How old are you? 15? I never claimed you didn't, I only asked you to repost since I haven't SEEN you post good counter arguments, and then you lash out with a strawman? The fact you actually resorted to a personal attack of that nature pretty much destroys your credibility as anything but an immature child. Thanks for admitting you were wrong though. :wink:Quote:
The next time you decide to accuse me of not forming actual arguments I want you to SNIP
More like you misrepresent what I do and ignore my questions and/or dodge them like a Nimble Mongoose dodging a Lightning Bolt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpT
I'm opinionated and I get into heated discussion easily, but don't accuse me of doing something if you don't plan on backing it up. I haven't ignored any data and I haven't misrepresented any arguments against me and if I did by some accident I seem to remember correcting myself and if I haven't I apologize in advance. I'm not perfect but don't pretend you are either. If you have a gripe with me say so, but last time I checked I asked you a question and you dodged the hell out of it.
Ball in your court...
Honestly I don't see whats so hard about this. Why can't WotC make some decent anti-blue measures. Its not that fucking hard. If they can make blue good enough to lead the format for this long then why can't they make something that can't be played effectively with blue or discourages other players from playing blue?
As far as I can tell they just don't want to. For all this talk about banning Brainstorm it hasn't been coming from wotc. The only two cards played in Legacy from Innistrad are blue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacrix